Occupiers Liability Act 1984

11 Key excerpts on "Occupiers Liability Act 1984"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Tort Law

  • Timon Hughes-Davies, Nathan Tamblyn(Authors)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 11

  Occupiers’ 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

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Tort Law

  • Sue Hodge(Author)
  • 2004(Publication Date)
  • Willan

    (Publisher)

  4   Negligence and dangerous premises The Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984

  Although 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 visitors

  Until 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.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Principles of Tort Law

  • 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’.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Law for Non-Law Students

  • 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:

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Essential Tort Law for SQE1

  • Wendy Laws(Author)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  This chapter first explains the limited duty of care owed by an occupier to such persons. It notes the conditions that must be satisfied before such duty can arise. Then it explains the limited scope of the duty once it has arisen.

  It considers the standard of care the occupier is expected to meet when a duty does arise. It notes that the usual principles for causation of damage apply. Finally, it outlines possible defences.

  14.2 Liability to trespassers – introduction

  As explained in Chapter 13 , we will use the terms ‘visitor’ and ‘trespasser’ to distinguish between the two classes of people covered by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (‘the 1957 Act’ and ‘the 1984 Act’).1

  1 As noted in Chapter 13, the 1984 Act also covers some classes of people who are not trespassers (e.g., those exercising a private right of way).

  As a reminder, a visitor (owed a duty under the 1957 Act) is a person who is invited or permitted by the occupier to be on the premises. In contrast, people may enter premises as trespassers in a wide range of circumstances. Look at these problem scenarios:

  An uninvited guest gate-crashes a party at a house and is injured when he falls downstairs. At a zoo, a young child wanders away from her parents and enters an area which is closed to the public, where she is injured when she falls through some railings. A teenager cannot afford to buy a ticket to enter a theme park, so he sneaks in without paying but is injured when he falls from a defective carriage on one of the rides.

  In each of these cases the person who is hurt is a trespasser on the premises. (In the case of the child, she becomes a trespasser when she wanders into an area where she had no right or permission to enter.) So, in cases like this, the question of the occupier’s duty is governed by the 1984 Act.

  14.3 Occupiers and premises

  The 1984 Act says that an occupier is defined in the same way as for the 1957 Act. So, we know that an occupier is the person who exercises control over the premises.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Optimize Tort Law

  • 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 in

  Addie & 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. In

  British Railways Board v Herrington

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Unlocking Torts

  • Sanmeet Kaur Dua, Chris Turner(Authors)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 10 ), or there may in any case be an action in negligence available.

  Liability for land and premises falls into two distinct areas:

  ■ Liability by an occupier of premises for loss or injury caused by the state of the premises – such liability can also be divided according to whom has suffered the loss or injury.

  ■ Liability by a person other than an occupier of land for defects in the premises themselves – this involves landlords and builders.

  Occupiers’ liability is a fairly recent tort and is found in two statutes:

  ■ the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 – which is concerned with the duty of care owed to all lawful visitors; and

  ■ the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 – which is concerned with the duty owed to people other than lawful visitors, the major group here being trespassers.

  Both areas then are statutory in form, but certainly in the case of occupiers’ liability have developed out of negligence. As a result much of the terminology and many of the principles are the same or similar to basic negligence principles. Indeed, though the Acts do contain extensive definition, where definitions are not supplied in the Acts these are to be found in the common law.

  trespasser A person who enters premises without permission or who exceeds the permission they are given

  Inevitably there is some overlap with negligence. The basic liability arises from the loss or injury caused by the ‘state of the premises’. Loss or damage that arises other than because of the state of the premises then should be claimed for under negligence where this is possible.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Getting Started in Business Law

  • Paul Bates(Author)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Goodfellow Publishers

    (Publisher)

  One thing that we can be fairly sure about, is that Mr P and Mrs C are not so friendly as they used to be… An occupier’s liability for premises You will be pleased to hear that in relation to all the above, the concept of occupier’s liability is relatively easy. Occupier’s liability stems from the wider tort of negligence but it has a narrower focus as it deals with the duty of care which an ‘occupier’ of ‘premises’ may have to visitors to these premises. There are only two Acts of Parliament which operate in this area. These are: † The Occupier’s Liability Act 1957, and † The Occupier’s Liability Act 1984. The earlier act deals with ‘lawful’ visitors to premises and the later act deals with ‘non lawful’ visitors (mainly trespassers). The 1957 Act defines premises as, “any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft.” As the Act mentions not just fixed objects but also moveable ones, we now know from case law following the Act, that the definition of premises can also extend to any buildings, including outbuildings, lifts, chairs, ladders and even scaffolding. I was asked recently whether a submarine might be included here. I suspect the answer is yes, as a submarine is a vessel. Unfortunately, neither Act gives us a full definition of who an ‘occupier’ actually is, so once more we’ve had to rely on decided case law to give us some satisfactory definitions. Luckily the two areas above, (occupier and premises) are the only tricky issues you are likely to find with occupier’s liability. We’ll deal with these 121 5 The law of tort shortly. Let’s start with the duty of care the earlier Act tells us we have to visitors to the places where we live, and to any business premises we might be using.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Law and the Built Environment

  • Douglas Wood, Paul Chynoweth, Julie Adshead, Jim Mason(Authors)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Wiley-Blackwell

    (Publisher)

  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. They had not done so and were consequently liable. The Law Lords appeared anxious to lay down a standard higher than the common law position but not as high as the duty to take reasonable care owed under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Liability would arise if the occupier knew of the danger, and the likelihood of the trespass, in addition to having the ability and resources to prevent the accident. The case was subjected to critical reviews and comments and the problem of the relationship between trespassers and occupiers was referred to the Law Commission. The report of the Commission (No. 75) formed the basis of the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. (E) The Occupiers Liability Act 1984 The Act applies to all persons other than lawful visitors. In addition to trespassers it will include those using a private right of way. Those using a public highway are speci fi cally excluded. It does not apply to claims in respect of lost or damaged property. The Act does not provide that an occupier automatically owes a duty of care to trespassers. An occupier will only owe a duty of care to a trespasser if s.1 [3] of the 1984 Act is satis fi ed. For the section to apply the occupier must: • Be aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to know it exists. • Know, or have reasonable grounds to believe, the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger or is likely to come into the vicinity. • The risk is one against which he may reasonably be expected to offer to the other person some protection.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Foundations of Engineering Contracts

  • F R Roulston, M.O'C. Horgan, F.R. Roulston, F R Roulston **Decd**(Authors)
  • 2003(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  For any action resulting in a claim for damages: 3 years from the date when a cause of action first occurs. This period can be extended when the available knowledge at the last date is inadequate to further the claim.

  The latest word on this is probably the Latent Damage Act 1986 to which reference should be made.

  8.7 OCCUPIER'S LIABILITY TO VISITORS TO SITE

  Every occupier of a premises has a duty to safeguard third-parties visiting the premises, and the Employer is no exception. He exercises his duty through his project manager, who is therefore personally responsible to his client for the safety of visitors on-site. Note that the duty is expected from the occupier, not the owner, the lessee, the absent landlord, or such like, but the person who is occupying the site. If any accident occurs by which a third-party is injured, the occupier can be jointly charged along with the people who actually caused the injury or damage. The charge is negligence, in that the necessary precautions weren’t taken to ensure the third party’s safety. A contractor, his employees and his visitors, observers, callers, etc., are all treated as third parties, and none of them is likely to be the occupier.

  Therefore, in arranging a contract, the project manager should see that it contains a clause which indemnifies the Employer from all costs, damages and charges which he may sustain from claims made against him by any visitor or employee on the site to the extent that the Employer was not guilty of actually subscribing to the damage the third party sustained. The exclusion cannot, of course, remove from the Employer’s staff on the site any direct blame they might incur through their own actions, but it can relieve the Employer from a claim made against him, as occupier of the site, when he has been blameless for the actual accident producing the casualty.

  How is an occupier defined? He is the person who controls the premises, and especially the access of visitors and other entrants. He is the person who can say: ‘Shut that gate and keep them out’, or ‘Open it up and let them in’. He need not be the owner, who might be miles away, having handed control over to the project manager. The occupier owes his same common duty of care to all persons he allows to enter, and hence can include his contractors, their staff and employees among his ‘visitors’.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  No longer available |Learn more

  Police 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.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book