Occupiers Liabilty
- Occupier
- Premises
- Lawful visitor or trespasser
Occupier Liability Act 1957
Lawful Visitors
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
Trespassers
Occupier
Def. ‘a person who has a sufficient degree of control over premises to out him under a duty of care towards those who come lawfully on to the premises’
- The individual that occupies the premises, this could be an owner, a tenant, or a resident
Wheat v Lacon and Co. Ltd
Facts: C feel and died when going down stairs in a pub, there was no light and the handrail did not extend the full way of the staircase - the room was rented out by the manager and the pub was owned by the brewery
Held: there can be multiple occupiers
- an occupier is ‘a person who had a sufficient degree of control over premises’
- both Lacon & Co and the manager were considered joint occupiers
S1(3)(a) OL Act 1957
Defines premises as any ‘fixed or movable structure including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft’
What are the 4 categories of adult visitors who are covered by the OL Act 1957?
Licensees: people permitted onto premises for certain time/purpose - e.g. postmen
Invitees: e.g. family members visiting relatives
Contractual Permission: e.g. purchase of a ticket to a football match
Statutory right: e.g. emergency services
S2(2) OLA 1957 what/who is necessary to be kept safe?
- The visitor
- Adults
S2(2) OLA 1957 to what standard is the visitor to be kept safe?
- To a reasonable standard not perfect
- Adults are owed the common duty of care and are also expected to demonstrate a reasonable level of responsibility for their own safety
Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
Facts: C fell over concrete raised about an inch above the road surface - C suffered a shoulder injury and a hernia
- his wife had passed through uninsured immediately before
Held: “tripping, slipping and falling are everyday occurrences - occupier must make land reasonably safe for visitors, not guarantee their safety”
S2(3)(a) OLA 1957
Alters the standard of care for children
- ‘an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults’
Taylor v Glasgow Corporation
Facts: 7 yr old visited public gardens and ate some berries from one of the plants
- berries poisonous and the boy died as a result - there were no warning signs and the area was not fenced off
Held: liable
- the berries would have been an ‘allurement’ to children
- the courts recognised children were expected to be less careful than adults
- the Ds were aware the berries were poisonous and offered no protection
Bourne Leisure v Marsden
Facts: 2 1/2 yr old boy drowned in a pond on a holiday park whilst under the care of his parents
- the parents sought a claim of OL against the park upon the pond should’ve been fenced/danger should’ve been made aware
Held: although parents were not at fault, this does not automatically impose fault on the Ds
S2(3)(b) OLA 1957
Alters the standard of care for skilled visitors
- ‘an occupier may expect that a person in the exercise of his calling will appreciate and guard against special risks ordinarily incident to it so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so.’
- i.e. an occupier can expect a tradesman to guard against ordinary risks associated with his profession - the C does not owe a duty to warn skilled visitors of risks associated with their profession
Roles v Nathan
Facts: 2 chimney sweeps contracted to seal the flutes in a central heating system - the flutes had become dangerous due to carbon monoxide
- a heating engineer warned the brother of the dangers which they stated they understood and had years of experience
- the levels of carbon monoxide rose and the heating engineer ordered everyone to leave until the next day
- they came back in the evening and were both found dead the next day
Held: it is reasonable to expect that tradesmen will guard against the risk of their trade, especially ones they were warned against
2 ways the duty/breach of duty can be discharged
- Independent contractors
2. Warning signs
S2(4)(b) OLA 1957
- if the fault on the premises is caused by the negligence of an independent contractor, the occupier may be able to pass on the claims to the independent contractor and be absolved form liability
What are the 3 requirements in order to pass the claim to the independent contractor?
- All 3 need to be satisfied
- It must be reasonable for the occupier to have entrusted the work to the independent contractor
- The contractor hired must be competent to carry out the task (courts look at the steps the occupier has taken to ensure hat they are hiring a qualified and competent independent contractor - experience and qualifications of the contractor)
- The occupier must check the work has been done properly (or employ another professional to check it fi it is complex)
Alexander v Freshwater Properties
Facts: C suffered injury to finger when it became caught in the front door of the block of flats she lived in - resulted in partial amputation of her finger
- The occupiers had employed an independent contractor to refurbish the door handles
- The independent contractor left the refurbishment incomplete, know to the occupier
Held: both the occupier and the independent contractor were found jointly liable
S2(4) OLA 1957
- ‘where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe’
- i.e. a warning notice provided by the occupier does not automatically absolve a defendant occupier of liability
- however it may do if the warning is enough to keep the claimant reasonably safe
English Heritage v Taylor
Facts: the C was visiting a castle at an English heritage site
- walking along grass moat when he fell into a dry moat
- no warning sign, 12 ft drop
- the drop was not visible
Held: the sheer drop was an obvious danger and the occupier should have taken reasonable steps to protect visitors to the premises
- English heritage were in breach of their duty by failing to provide an adequate warning sign
Occupier Liability Act 1984
Outlines the duty of care owed by the occupiers of premises to those other than lawful visitors (trespassers)
- Lawful visitors may be regarded as trespassers when they enter premises for a different purpose than their lawful right of entry
- specifies the circumstances in which a dirty to protect against personal injury will be owing against a trespasser, there are 3 conditions all of which must be fulfilled
s1(3) Occupiers Liability Act 1984
‘An occupier of premises owes a duty to another (not being a visitor) in respect of any such risk as is referred to in subsection (1) if:
(A) he is aware of the danger or his reasonable grounds to believe that it exists
(B) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger (in either case, whether the other has lawful authority for being in that vicinity or not ) and
(C) the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection
Rhind v Astbury Water Park
(A) he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists;
Facts:
Held: the occupier was not liable
- they did not know of the dangerous objects
