Law
Occupiers Liability
Occupiers liability refers to the legal responsibility of a person who occupies or controls a property to ensure the safety of visitors and trespassers. This duty of care includes maintaining the premises in a safe condition, warning of any hazards, and taking reasonable steps to prevent accidents or injuries. The laws governing occupiers liability aim to protect individuals from harm while on someone else's property.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
8 Key excerpts on "Occupiers Liability"
Learn about this page
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
eBook - ePub- Brendan Greene(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
hapter 10Occupiers’ Liability 10.1 Introduction- The tort of occupiers’ liability deals with the liability of the occupier of premises to those who come on to the premises. The rules were originally developed by the common law but the above two statutes were passed to clarify the law and they set out more detailed rules.
- At common law entrants to land were divided into four categories and the duty owed to them became progressively less.
Contractual visitor duty to see premises were safe e.g. paying customer at a swimming pool Invitee duty to prevent damage from an unusual danger e.g. customer in a shop Licensee duty to protect from concealed danger e.g. asking a friend to visit your house Trespasser duty not to intentionally or recklessly harm e.g. someone climbs into your garden over your garden wall - The above rules were set out in Addie & Sons v Dumbreck [1929]. In British Railway Board v Herrington [1972] the House of Lords said that trespassers were owed a ‘duty of common humanity’ which was a minimum level.
- The common law rules are still relevant as s1 Occupiers’ Liability Act (OLA) 1957 says that visitors are those who were invitees or licensees.
- Also if an entrant falls outside the requirements of either of the two OLAs then the common law rules apply.
- OLA 1957 covers:
- personal injury
- death
- damage to property.
- OLA 1957 s1(3)(a) provides that the Act covers ‘the obligations of a person occupying or having control over any fixed or movable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft’. This has even been held to apply to a ladder, Wheeler v Copas [1981].
- The OLA 1957 does not define occupier but says that the common law rules apply.
- Wheat v Lacon
eBook - ePub- Graham Stephenson, Graham Stephenson(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Routledge-Cavendish(Publisher)
CHAPTER 7
OCCUPIER'S LIABILITY
INTRODUCTION
The subject to be explored in this chapter is the liability of occupiers to visitors, whether lawful or not. The liability is based on fault and is considered to be a species of negligence, although it is now on a statutory footing both in relation to lawful visitors and to trespassers. Before the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, this area was regulated by the common law. It was considered that the common law had created a number of difficulties which could only be resolved by statute, hence, the 1957 Act. The main difficulty concerned the apparent fluctuation in the standard of care expected by the occupier depending on the precise status of the entrant onto the premises. Briefly, the law differentiated between contractual entrants, invitees, licensees and trespassers. The latter were considered to be beyond the pale, being owed a minimal duty. The other three categories were regarded as lawful entrants but it seems that they were treated somewhat differently when it came to the standard of care owed. The major difficulties arose at the divide between invitees and licensee on the one hand and licensees and trespassers on the other. An invitee was owed a duty of reasonable care whereas the licensee was owed a duty to warn of danger and concealed traps of which the occupier was aware. Trespassers were owed very little at all. Case law at the margins of these divides resulted in artificial distinctions such as the implied licence in favour of children ‘allured’ onto premises by machinery or other attractive objects, thus allowing the courts to treat them as lawful entrants as opposed to trespassers. Other cases involved convoluted discussions about whether the entrant was an invitee or licensee and again courts often strained the meaning of theses categories to obtain a higher standard of care for the claimant. Broadly, an invitee was thought to be a person who came onto the relevant premises with a purpose in common with the occupier. A licensee, on the other hand, was a person who merely had permission, express or implied, to be on the premises.
eBook - ePub- Wendy Laws(Author)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
PART 8Occupiers’ liability
Passage contains an image
13Occupiers’ liability: visitors
DOI: 10.4324/9781003133698-22
This and the following chapter cover the liability a person may incur where someone comes on to their premises and is injured by the dangerous state of the premises. Occupiers’ liability to persons who enter the premises as lawful visitors is covered here. Liability to persons entering as trespassers is covered in the next chapter.13.1 Chapter overviewIn order to put occupiers’ liability in context, this chapter begins with an overview of some issues which are relevant to both visitors and trespassers. In particular, it notes that the occupier’s duties are governed by statute.Then, turning to the liability of an occupier to their visitors, it first identifies the parties to a claim: who is an occupier and who is a visitor? It then explains the nature and content of the occupier’s statutory duty of care to their visitors. It outlines how that duty may be discharged so that the occupier is not in breach. It notes that the usual principles for causation of damage apply. Finally, it considers defences.
Look at this problem scenario:13.2 Introduction to occupiers’ liabilityA man owns a house with a large garden. He invites some friends to a garden party. Unfortunately, one of the guests trips over a defective paving slab and breaks her ankle.Suppose that a neighbour of the householder is not an invited guest at the garden party but nevertheless sneaks into the garden uninvited. She cuts her hand on some barbed wire.- Would the householder be liable to the friend for her injury?
- Would it be different if the paving slab had been recently laid by a building contractor engaged by the householder?
eBook - ePub- Sanmeet Kaur Dua, Chris Turner(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
‘The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 modifies the common law to the extent that the safety of lawful visitors is ensured.’ Discuss how the law on occupiers’ liability has developed in the light of the above statement.SUMMARY
■ Occupiers’ liability is covered by two Acts: the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 for lawful ‘visitors’, and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 for trespassers.■ An ‘occupier’ is anybody in actual control of the land and premises is broadly defined.■ By s2(1) of the 1957 Act a ‘common duty of care’ is owed to all lawful visitors.■ By s2(2) the duty is to ensure that the visitor is safe for the purposes of the visit.■ Under s2(3) an occupier must take extra care for children, who are less cautious, and not allure them – although parents are responsible for young children.■ A person carrying out a trade or calling on the occupier’s premises must guard against the risks associated with the trade.■ The occupier is not liable for damage which is the result of work done by independent contractors if:■ it is reasonable to entrust the work■ a reputable contractor is chosen, and■ the occupier inspects the work if necessary.■ Adequate warnings; exclusion clauses and the defences of consent or contributory negligence can also be used to avoid liability.■ Trespassers are protected by the 1984 Act under s1(3) if the occupier:■ is aware of the danger■ knows of the trespass, and■ the risk is one against which he may be expected to offer some protection but only covers personal injury.Further reading
Farrelly, M, ‘Dangerous premises and liability to trespassers’ (2001) 151 NLJ 309.Harvey, B and Marston, J, Cases and Commentary on Tort (4th edn, Longman, 2000), Chapter 7.Wilkinson, H, ‘Boys will be boys’ (2000) 150 NLJ
4 Negligence and dangerous premises The Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984Although the problems posed by dangerous premises are addressed in this chapter, it is important to bear in mind that many of the matters already discussed will be relevant to this. We will come back to this point later.The essence of the problem connected with dangerous premises is to identify those persons to whom a duty of care is owed, the person who owes that duty and the extent of the duty. This chapter starts by considering the distinction between lawful and unlawful visitors and discussing the identity of the person who owes the duty. It will go on to discuss the nature of the duty owed to particular categories of visitors.Lawful and unlawful visitorsUntil recently the occupier of land and premises could escape liability for negligent injury caused to someone on that land or in those premises by establishing that the person had no right to be there. This is an example of the maxim discussed under the heading ‘Participation in an unlawful act (ex turpi causa non oritur actio)’ in Chapter 5 (see pp. 106 –107 ). A person classified as a trespasser was historically given no protection.Problems could arise in respect of lawful visitors as the duty of care owed by an occupier varied according to the nature of the permission which allowed the person to enter the land. Parliament acted, following the recommendations of the Third Report of the Law Reform Committee (Cmd 9305) 1954, which dealt with some of these problems, and then passed the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.The Act ensures that any visitor with either express or implied permission or lawful authority to be on the land has the benefit of the protection of the Act. It is not difficult to identify such categories of visitors. Persons who have received a specific invitation are obviously included as are those who have paid for the right of entry, for example to a theme park or to a cinema. Others included are those who visit premises as a result of implied permission, for example a person delivering milk which has been ordered or a person delivering the post, or the fire brigade summoned to deal with a fire emergency. Lawful authority will extend to the police and other persons exercising rights granted by a warrant.
eBook - ePub- Timon Hughes-Davies, Nathan Tamblyn(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
Chapter 11Occupiers’ Liability
This chapter discusses the duty of occupiers to take reasonable care of visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, and of non-visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.If someone trips over a loose tile on the floor of a hotel lobby, can they sue for their injury? What if that person was trespassing? This chapter is about the duty of care owed by occupiers of ‘premises’ (typically land or buildings) to other people on those premises. The duty of care owed to visitors is governed by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. The duty of care owed to non-visitors (usually trespassers) is governed by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.This chapter proceeds as follows. First, we shall consider some themes and concepts common to both Acts. Second, we shall discuss the duty of care owed to visitors. Third, we discuss the duty of care owed to non-visitors. Finally, we shall explore some common defences.____________As you read
- Identify the differences between the regimes of the 1957 Act and the 1984 Act.
- Identify the common ground shared by the two Acts.
- Be aware of how the facts might give rise to other causes of action in tort besides occupiers’ liability.
- Consider whether the law strikes a fair balance between the duties imposed on an occupier and the person injured on their premises.
11.1 Common themes
In this section, we explore how occupiers’ liability is concerned with the condition of the premises, rather than activities performed on those premises. Then we turn to consider concepts (like ‘occupier’ and ‘premises’) common to both the 1957 Act and the 1984 Act.Liability for condition of premises
Although there remains some academic discussion of the point, the case law seems to suggest that occupiers’ liability is concerned only with the condition of the premises, that is, whether the premises themselves are safe or not. It is not concerned with the occupier’s activities on the premises.1
eBook - ePub- Brendan Greene(Author)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
1984 , were passed to clarify the law and to set out detailed rules. These rules are in effect statutory negligence.At common law the entrants to land were divided into four categories which were created inAddie & Sons v Dumbreck [1929]AC 358 as set out in the table below. The duty owed became progressively less until it came to trespassers when the duty was merely not to harm them. Although the categories are still relevant the duties owed have been changed by the Occupiers’ Liability Acts .Contractual visitor Occupier has a material interest in their visit. Duty to see that the premises are safe, e.g. a paying customer at a swimming pool Invitee Duty to prevent damage from an unusual danger, e.g. a customer in a shop is owed this duty Licensee Duty to protect from any concealed danger the occupier knows of, e.g. asking a friend to your house Trespasser Duty not to intentionally or recklessly harm, e.g. someone climbs over your garden wall The common law rules are still relevant as s1 Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957 ) provides that visitors are those who were invitees or licensees at common law. The OLA 1957 also includes contractual visitors under s5(1). All these three categories are now ‘visitors’ and owed the common duty of care under s2(1) OLA 1957 . Trespassers are now covered by the OLA 1984 .If an entrant to land falls outside the rules of both Occupiers’ Liability Acts then the common law rules apply to them. InBritish Railways Board v Herrington
4 Occupier’s liability4.1 Liability to lawful visitors under the 1957 Act4.1.1 Introduction1 Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 – covers liability to visitors.2 1984 Act covers liability to non-visitors (mainly trespassers).3 Both Acts only cover damage resulting from state of premises – other damage is covered by negligence (Ogwo v Taylor (1987)).4.1.2 Definition of occupier (potential defendants)1 There is no real statutory definition so common law test applies: who has control of premises? (Wheat v Lacon (1966)).2 Dual occupation possible – identity of the defendant depends on the nature of the interest, etc. (Collier v Anglian Water Authority (1983)).3 In an action a lawyer’s main concern is who has means to be sued.4 There is no need for proprietary interest or possession, only control, so different from trespass (Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976)).4.1.3 Definition of premises1 No complete definition in either Act, so common law applies.2 It obviously includes houses, buildings, land, etc. but also:ships in dry dock (London Graving Dock v Horton (1951));vehicles (Hartwell v Grayson (1947));lifts (Haseldine v Daw & Son Ltd (1941));aircraft (Fosbroke-Hobbes v Airwork Ltd (1937));and even a ladder (Wheeler v Copas (1981)).3 The 1957 Act in s 1(3)(a) preserves the common law (‘fixed or movable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft…’).4.1.4 Potential claimants1 The 1957 Act simplified complex common law classes of entrant. These were:invitee – enters in material interest of occupier, e.g. a shop customer, a friend visiting;licensee – mere permission, e.g. a person taking a short cut;a person entering under a contract, e.g. a painter (duty depended on contract) – a subcontractor is only a licensee;
