Occupiers Liability 1957 Act

Question 1

What is the 1957 act?

Answer 1

Where occupier of the premises owes a DOC to lawful visitors and if that duty has breached and the visitor is injured then he is entitled to receive compensation.

Question 2

What is an occupier?

Answer 2

• No statutory definition
• Usually owner/tenant of premises
• Test for deciding whether a person is an occupier comes from case law

Question 3

What are the cases for the introduction?

Answer 3

Wheat v E.Lacon & Co.ltd ——> (there can be more than 1 occupier on premises)
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation ——> (person who is in control of premises will be occupier)
Bailey v Armes ——> (sometimes no one will be in control leaving visitor with no claim)

Question 4

What is the definition of premises?

Answer 4

S.1(3)(a) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 : “any fixed or moveable structure including vessel vehicle or aircraft”

Question 5

What is the test for deciding liability?

Answer 5

1. Is D an occupier of the premises?
2. Is C a visitor?
3. Has D Breached his duty?

Question 6

What must the occupier do for the visitors?

Answer 6

S.2(1) owe a duty of care
S.2(2) keep visitor reasonably safe

Question 7

Who are considered lawful adult visitors?

Answer 7

Invitees (family/friends)
Licences (postman)
Contractual permission (milkman/window cleaner)
Statutory Permission (police)

Question 8

What are the cases for Adults?

Answer 8

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeout Supreme —> (only have to take reasonable care for visitors)

Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell —> (keep reasonably safe, risk will only be reasonably foreseeable if there is a real source of danger)

Cole v Davis-Gilbert (no liability if there could have been another cause of damage)

Question 9

What is the occupiers liability to children?

Answer 9

• Must owe additional duty to children
  -Under s.2(3) occupier “must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults so the premises must be reasonably safe for a child that age”
  -This is subjective according to child’s age
• Must guard against allurement

Question 10

What are the cases for children?

Answer 10

Glasgow corporation v Taylor (guard against allurement)

Jolley v London Borough of Sutton (liable even though not foreseeable as it was foreseeable children would play in abandoned boat)

Phipps v Rochester Corporation (children under age of 5 are classed as very young children and are of responsibility of the parent)

Question 11

What is the occupiers liability to tradesmen and what is the case?

Answer 11

-Owe a common DOC
-Under s.2(3)(b) “where tradesmen fail to guard against risks which they should know about or would be expected to know about”

Case : Roles v Nathan (occupiers not liable, tradesmen expected to be aware of risks involved)

Question 12

What is the occupiers liability for independent contractors?

Answer 12

Under s.2(4) occupier may have a defence to pass responsibility onto IC

1. Must be reasonable to have given them the work
   Case : Haseldine v Daw & Son ltd
2. Contractor must be competent
   Case : Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
3. Occupier must check that work has been properly done
   Case : Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings

Question 13

What are the defences under s.57?

Answer 13

1. Contributory Negligence - Law Reform (contributory negligence) act 1945
   Case : Yvonne Forrest v Iceland Foods ltd
2. Consent (full knowledge, free choice, accepted risk)
3. Warning notices (oral/written)
   S.2(4) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 warning signs will be ineffective unless keeps visitor reasonably safe
   Case : Rae v Marrs (UK) ltd
4. Exclusion Clauses
   S.2(1) ‘restrict, modify or exclude his duty by agreement or otherwise’