Law
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 is a UK law that imposes a duty of care on occupiers of premises to ensure the safety of visitors. It defines the duty of care owed to visitors and sets out the circumstances under which an occupier may be liable for injuries or damage suffered by visitors on their premises. The Act aims to protect the rights of visitors and ensure their safety while on someone else's property.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
10 Key excerpts on "Occupiers Liability Act 1957"
eBook - ePub- Birju Kotecha(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Taylor & Francis(Publisher)
7 Occupiers’ Liability INTRODUCTIONOccupiers’ liability is a specialised branch of the tort of negligence and is tested in most examinations year after year. The area is governed by statute – namely, theChecklistOccupiers’ Liability Act 1957and theOccupiers’ Liability Act 1984. Thus, in addition to the common law concepts of duty, breach, causation and remoteness, attention must be paid to the statutes and the particular sections that elaborate on the common law principles. Be aware that in moving around a premises, a person may well change in status from a visitor to a non-visitor – and therefore being at first subject to the1957 Actto being subject to the1984 Act. By doing so, it will be much more difficult for that person to demonstrate that they are owed a duty of care, and this difference should be brought out in answers. This chapter has three problem questions and one essay question. Many students find occupiers’ liability challenging insofar as questions can involve many issues, so it is important to be wise with timing, focus on the critical issues and have a sound grasp of the statutes to assist with your structure.(a) the definitions of occupiers, visitors and non-visitors; (b) the duty regarding children and skilled persons, independent contractors as well as the legal effect of warnings; (c) the exclusion of duty; (d) the circumstances under which a duty to a non-visitor arises and the nature of this duty as distinct from a duty to visitors.Students must be familiar with the following areas:Aim HigherStrong candidates show a grasp of all the relevant features that comprise occupiers’ liability including ‘premises’ and ‘occupier’ but without dwelling on these where they are not relevant. You must concisely apply the relevant provisions of the statute. Also, most tort students will have a statute book that is accessible to them in the exam, so it will serve little purpose to copy out entire and lengthy sections as this will not receive much credit and it will also waste time. Better candidates will paraphrase the key section or even better to simply refer to sections and apply them on the facts without over describing the section. In addition Tomlinson v Congleton
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- Keith Owens(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge-Cavendish(Publisher)
Cutler v United Dairies (1933), a runaway horse had run into a field. The plaintiff tried to calm it and was injured. It was held that the plaintiff could not claim to be a rescuer since there was no immediate danger requiring a rescue.OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACTS 1957 AND 1984
If a person is injured as a result of premises being unsafe or an unsafe activity being carried out on the premises, he or she may have one of three legal actions. We have already considered the actions of breach of statutory duty and the tort of negligence. The third possibility is under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. This provides that occupiers of premises owe a duty to visitors to take such care as is reasonable in order to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises. The later Act, passed in 1984, deals mainly with the thorny question of trespassers.Relationship between negligence and occupiers’ liability
In theory, the Occupiers’ Liability Act creates a duty in relation to the state of the premises. Thus, the occupier is liable for any injury arising from the defective state of the premises. Negligence creates a duty to take care in relation to activities carried out on the premises. However, in practice the courts do not always make this distinction. Perhaps, in any case, the distinction in many cases will be academic, since it seems that the duty laid down by the Act and the duty laid down by the tort of negligence are so similar in effect as to produce similar outcomes.Definition of ‘premises’
The Act defines ‘premises’ in such a way as to include ‘any fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft’. Thus ‘premises’ includes not only land and buildings upon the land but also appliances or objects on the land of which the visitor has been invited or allowed to make use, for example, grandstands, theatre stages, diving-boards, ladders, etc.Who is an occupier?
The duty is owed by an occupier of premises. This is not necessarily the owner. Thus, if property is rented, the duty will normally be owed by the tenant. This, however, depends on the circumstances of the case. If two or more persons have control over premises, they may all be occupiers. In Wheat v Lacon (1966), the owner of a public house allowed the manager to take in paying guests on the upper floor. An accident occurred whereby a guest was injured when slipping on an unlighted staircase leading to the upper floor. The question arose as to whether the pub owners were also occupiers. Held:
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 - PDF- Rachael Mulheron(Author)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
PART II Specific Negligence Regimes 581 12 Occupiers’ Liability THE CAUSE OF ACTION DEFINED This chapter concerns the liability of occupiers of premises, D, towards either lawful visitors or trespassers, C, who are injured (or killed) while on those premises. §12.1 The law of occupiers’ liability is governed, in English law, by two statutes: • The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (‘the OLA 1957’) governs the liability of an occupier of premises to his lawful visitors. An occupier owes any lawful visitor a ‘common duty of care’, the terms of which are ‘a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there’ (per s 2(2)); or • The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (‘the OLA 1984’) governs the liability of an occupier to tres-passers (or unlawful visitors). An occupier does not owe a ‘common duty of care’ to a trespasser; rather, the occupier’s duty of care is far more limited. The law of occupiers’ liability is a true mix of statutorily stated principles and common law negligence. Both Acts impact, to some degree, on whether the occupier owed a duty of care or breached that duty and the defences available to him, while causation and remoteness are entirely governed by the common law. Where the Acts apply, it has been judicially clarified that their provisions were truly intended to replace the common law rather than merely to consolidate it (per Maloney v Torfaen CBC 1 ). As Carnwath LJ explained in Maguire v Sefton MBC , 2 the law of occupiers’ liability ‘had become over-complicated by subtle distinctions derived from the case law over several decades’, and the reform proposals ‘were not pure codification in the strict sense. They were … codification-plus; that is, sorting out the law by a combination of re-statement, and amendment, as necessary’.
eBook - ePub- Brendan Greene(Author)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
7 Occupiers’ LiabilityRevision objectives
Understand the law • Can you explain who is an ‘occupier’ and who is a ‘visitor’ under the Occupier’s Liability Act (OLA) 1957 ?• Can you identify the three special categories of visitor under the OLA 1957 ?• Can you list the possible defences to a claim under the OLA 1957 ?• Can you identify the three requirements to establish a duty under s1(3) OLA 1984 ?• Can you explain three defences under the OLA 1984 ?Remember the details • Can you explain the common duty of care under the OLA 1957 ?• Can you explain the duty to child visitors under the OLA 1957 and at common law?• Can you distinguish between a warning and exclusion notice under the OLA 1957 ?• Can you explain the three requirements under s1(3) OLA 1984 and give examples to illustrate?• Can you explain why the defendant was not liable inTomlinson v Congleton BC?Reflect critically on areas of debate • Can you explain the distinction between liability for defects with the land and for activities on the land and whether this is significant?• Can you explain two cases on obvious risks and why no duty was owed?• Can you explain how the age of a child may help to determine who is liable for their injuries?Contextualise • Do you understand that a claim may often equally be made for negligence or under the OLA 1957 ?• Do you understand it may sometimes be difficult to determine which OLA applies?• Do you appreciate the need to consider the defences available to a claim under the OLAs?Apply your skills and knowledge • Can you answer the question at the end of the chapter?Chapter Map
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 about such liability were originally developed by the common law. Two statutes, the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984
eBook - ePub- Wendy Laws(Author)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Taylor & Francis(Publisher)
Section 13.9.2 on exclusion of liability.)
Case law establishes that:13.6 Who is an occupier?- The occupier of premises is the person who exercises control over them.3
For example, the owner of a house, who lives there with her family, exercises control and so would be the occupier. Premises can have more than one occupier at the same time, where more than one person exercises control over them. In such a case, each occupier owes visitors a duty of care.3 See Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552 (HL) covered in Chapter 22.
The duty of care owed by an occupier to their visitors is specified in the statute. The statute says:13.7 The occupier’s duty of care to visitors- ‘An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the “common duty of care”, to all his visitors …’.4
4 Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 s.2(1).Do not make the mistake of misreading this as if the Act said that occupiers owe a common law duty to their visitors. What the Act does say is that an occupier owes the same duty of care to all visitors in common. (Before the 1957 Act, an occupier owed different duties to different kinds of visitors.)The Act also specifies the content of the occupier’s duty. The common duty of care is:- A duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted to be there.
Aileen is the occupier of an ancient castle which she opens to visitors. A visitor fell down a narrow, steep staircase and was injured. Aileen can show that the staircase was well lit and had a handrail, and that a sign informed visitors that it was steep. So, Aileen may deny liability by arguing that she did
eBook - ePub- Sanmeet Kaur Dua, Chris Turner(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
7Occupiers’ liability and liability for defective premises
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter you should be able to:■ Recognise and distinguish the nature of liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts■ Explain the meaning of occupier and premises■ Distinguish the different types of visitor and the Act appropriate to each■ Identify the different duties under the two Acts■ Identify and apply the different standard of care appropriate to children■ Explain how occupiers can discharge liability in respect of tradesmen, where independent contractors have caused the harm, and explain the effect of warnings, exclusion clauses and defences■ Critically analyse the Acts■ Apply the law to factual situations and reach conclusions as to liability7.1 Origins and general character
7.1.1 Introduction and origins
Occupiers’ liability concerns the liability of an ‘occupier’ of land or premises for the injury or loss or damage to property suffered by claimants while on the occupier’s ‘premises’. Therefore it must immediately be distinguished from damage caused by the defendant’s use of his land, which is suffered by the claimant outside of the occupier’s land. If this were on the claimant’s own land then it might lead to an action in nuisance (see Chapter 9 ) or possibly Rylands v Fletcher [1868] LR 1 Exch 265 (see Chapter 10
eBook - PDF- Douglas Wood, Paul Chynoweth, Julie Adshead, Jim Mason(Authors)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Wiley-Blackwell(Publisher)
In the case of property damage the stipulation will not be upheld unless it is reasonable in the circumstances. If lawful visitors have little option other than to enter the premises the occupier will fi nd it dif fi cult to exclude liability. (D) Trespassers Trespassers are not governed by the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Historically, an occupier of premises owed no duty of care to trespassers. A trespasser may be injured by the steps that the occupier has taken to keep him out, by the 137 [1990] 1 EGLR 161 138 Cotton v Derbyshire Dales District Council [1994] EWCA Civ 17; The Times June 20 1994 The Law of Tort 135 condition of the premises or by an activity which is taking place on the land. An occupier is entitled to place static deterrents on the property such as broken glass 139 or to place spikes on top of a wall but must not create hidden dangers such as traps or manholes. At common law apart from having a duty not to deliberately in fl ict damage on trespassers an occupier was not liable for a trespasser ’ s injuries. In Addie v Dumbreck 140 the defendant colliery owner was held to owe no duty of care towards a child trespasser who was crushed by haulage gear at a colliery. A signi fi cant development took place when the House of Lords introduced the concept of a ‘ duty of common humanity ’ . In the case of British Railways Board v Herrington 141 a six-year-old boy was electrocuted on a railway line after climbing through a fence which had not been properly maintained. Children regularly played near the line and railway staff were aware of their regular presence on the track. Local inhabitants also crossed the line as a short cut from one side of the railway embankment to the other. It was admitted that the boy was a trespasser but the House of Lords decided that the Board owed a duty to act with ‘ common humanity ’ towards child trespassers.
No longer available |Learn morePolice Liability and Risk Management
Torts, Civil Rights, and Employment Law
- Robert J Girod(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
39 © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Duty of Care Owners and Occupiers of Land: Duty to Take Precautions for Unreasonably Dangerous Conditions Liability Outside of the Premises The duty to protect others “outside the premises” from dangers originating on the property of owners and occupiers of land is another major issue in tort liability. For example, in one case a plaintiff injured herself when she crashed into a tree, which had fallen onto a highway from the defendant’s property. The court held that it is generally a question of fact as to whether a landowner has taken reasonable care in protecting people outside his land from danger-ous conditions existing upon the land ( Taylor v. Olsen , Or. Sup. Ct., 282 Or. 343, 578 P.2d 779 (1978)). The general rule is that a landowner has no duty to protect persons outside of his property from natural conditions existing on the property. But, liability has been found where the landowner was aware of the structural defects (such as a tree) and failed to take reasonable precau-tions to prevent harm ( Turner v. Ridley , 144 A.2d 269 (D.C. 1958)). Another case held that landowners whose property is adjacent to public sidewalks or highways (such as a ballpark) owe a duty of care to take reasonable precau-tions for the protection of the traveling public. What precautions are reason-able must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case ( Salevan v. Wilmington Park, Inc . , Del. Sup. Ct., 72 A.2d 239 (1950)). Liability on the Premises: Invitees, Licensees, and Trespassers The duty owed to someone entering onto one’s property (premises) depends upon the status of the person entering the property. In property law, such persons are known as either (a) invitees, (b) licensees, or (c) trespassers. This relationship determines the duty owed and the level of what is known in tort law as premise liability.
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.
