A level Law: 2.

3 Occupiers Liability

Occupiers’ Liability is a branch of negligence, created by statute and specifically the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, which concerns
OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT lawful visitors and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, which covers trespassers.
An occupier is anyone who is in control of the land as held in Wheat v Lacon. It is usually the owner or tenant but can sometimes be
1957 more than one person.
A premises is defined in s1(3) as any fixed or moveable structure including a vessel, vehicle or aircraft.

STAGE 1: Was the claimant a lawful STAGE 2: Has the occupier satisfied his STAGE 3: Was the claimant a lawful
visitor? duty of care? child visitor?
s2(1) Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 defines a lawful visitor as an s2(2) Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 the occupier must take care In relation to children, s2(3)(a) Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 says
invitee, a licensee, those with contractual permission and to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the that occupiers should be prepared for children to be less
those with a statutory right such as a meter reader or a police premises for the purpose for which he is invited to be there. careful than adults and the premises must be reasonably safe
officer exercising a warrant. for a child that age.
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway held that the premises do not
If the claimant is a lawful visitor, then the occupier owes him a have to be completely safe – the occupiers just have to take Glasgow Corporation v Taylor held that the general principle
common duty of care. reasonable care. is that anything that could be classed as an allurement or
attraction to children should be protected against.
Dean of Rochester Cathedral v Debell held that minor blemishes
and defects are not enough to impose liability; there has to be Phipps v Rochester Corporation, the court held that the child
a real source of danger. should be under the supervision of parents or other adults.

STAGE 4: Was the claimant carrying STAGE 5: Was the claimant an DEFENCES
out a trade? independent contractor? • Contributory negligence
s2(3)(b) Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 – the occupier can expect s2(4) Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 says that occupiers can pass • Consent
a tradesman to appreciate and guard against any risks liability to the contractor for NEGLIGENT WORK if 3 criteria
ordinarily incident to it which they should know about or be are satisfied: • Warning Notices – s2(4) – must enable visitor to be
expected to know about. reasonably safe
1. Is it reasonable for the occupier to have given the work to
Roles v Nathan held that the occupiers were not liable as they the contractor? – Haseldine v Daw • Exclusion Clauses
could have expected the chimney sweeps to be aware of the • s2(1) – residential occupiers can restrict liability
danger of carbon monoxide. 2. Is the contractor competent to carry out the task? –
Bottomley v Todmorden CC
3. Has the occupier checked the work has been properly
done? – Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings
A level Law: 2.3 Occupiers Liability

Occupiers’ Liability is a branch of negligence, created by statute and specifically the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, which concerns
OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT lawful visitors and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 which covers trespassers.
An occupier is anyone who is in control of the land, as held in Wheat v Lacon and is usually the owner or tenant but can sometimes
1984 be more than one person.
A premises is defined in s1(3) as any fixed or moveable structure including a vessel, vehicle or aircraft.
A trespasser is anyone who has no permission to be on the occupier’s premises or who has gone beyond their permission to be on
the premises. In the case of Herrington v British Railways Board, the House of Lords held that there is a duty of common humanity
Children are given the same statutory rules as adults: to trespassers where the occupier knows of the danger and the likelihood of trespass. This was later confirmed in s1(1) Occupiers’
• Keown v Coventry NHS Trust (2004) Liability Act 1984

• Baldaccino v West Wittering (2008)

Was the injury due to the state of Injuries have to have been caused by the state of the premises, not the claimant’s own
s1(1)(a) stupidity – Ratcliff v McConnell (1999)
the premises?

An occupier cannot be expected to offer protection against unknown dangers – Rhind v

Was the occupier aware of the Astbury Water Park (2004)
s1(3)(a)
danger? Note: even if the danger is known, it does not have to be protected against if it is an OBVIOUS
danger.

Did the occupier have reason to Occupier has to be able to anticipate presence of a trespasser – Higgs v Foster (2004)
s1(3)(b)
suspect trespassers? e.g. if trespassers have been seen, premises is left unlocked etc.

The practicalities of taking precautions – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)

Is it a risk against which the **KEY CASE
s1(3)(c)
occupier may be expected to take e.g. the cost of taking precautions, the expectation of trespassers, the responsibility of the
precautions? trespasser themselves.

Has the occupier taken such care For example, warning signs can be classed as having taken reasonable care if they
s1(4)
as is reasonable? enable the trespasser to be safe – s1(5) Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984