Business liability arising from the
occupation or management of land and
premises that form part of the business
enterprise
Occupiers’ liability
Statute based with a case law gloss
OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957
OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984
Both Acts only deal with the state of
premises – ( static duty) – any other
situation is covered by common law
negligence (activity duty)
Dangerous condition v dangerous activity
OLA 1957 – visitors
OLA 1984 - trespassers
OLA 1957
Regulates duty which an occupier of
premises owes to his visitors in respect of
dangers due to the state of the premises or
things done or omitted to be done on them
(s.1 OLA 1957)
OLA 1984
Regulates duty owed to non- visitors /
trespassers , persons entering land by a
right of way or access agreement.
OCCUPIERS – undefined by statute
Control –
Wheat v Lacon (1966)- landlord and owners of pub
Harris v Birkenhead (1976) –local authority ordered tenant out,
house not yet boarded up.
PREMISES – S.2(3) – land, buildings, fixed or movable structures
(wide enough to include a ladder Wheeler v Copas 1981)
VISITORS – S. 1(2) common duty of care owed to all lawful visitors –
express/implied permission to be on the premises.
S.2 (1) OLA 1957–
An occupier of premises owes a common duty of care
to all his visitors to the premises
S.2(2) -
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 to be here.
Darby v National Trust ( 2001) – claimant swam in
National Trust’s murky ornamental pond. Drowning
was an obvious risk so no warning required.
S2.(2) – standard required
reasonable occupier
negligence / fault based liability
To take reasonable care in the context
Laverton v Kiapasha [2002] customer
slipped on wet floor of takeaway restaurant
on rainy evening.
Bowen v National Trust [2011]
Risk assessment and compliance
This will arise where damage was under the
defendant’s control at the relevant time and
the incident would not have occurred unless
there had been negligence on the part of the
defendant, i.e. there is no other explanation. In
the case of Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd (1976), a
customer slipped on yoghurt that had been
spilled on the floor. It was obvious on the facts
that the defendant had been negligent.
S2(3)(a) – an occupier must be prepared for
children to be less careful than adults
Premises must be reasonably safe for children
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922) –red berries
in public park – (allurement); Jolley v Sutton London
Borough Council (2000) in which it was held that an
abandoned boat would attract children to it.
Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955) – 5 & 7
year olds out alone – Actions of reasonably
prudent parent
S2.(3)(b) - skilled visitors – expected to
guard against special risks relevant to their
work.
e.g. plumbers/ lift engineers / electricians
Roles v Nathan (1963)- chimney sweeps
overcome by fumes and died.
S2(4)(b) An occupier will not be liable for the harm
caused by the work of an independent
contractor provided that:
i) It is reasonable to use a contractor
ii) They take reasonable steps to ensure the
contractor is competent (Ferguson v Welsh
1987)
iii) If nature of the work allows they check it is
done properly (AMF v Magnet Bowling 1968)
See
Haseldine v Daw (1941); Woodward v Mayor of
Hastings (1945)
S.2(3) OLA 1957 – contributory negligence
S.2(5) OLA 1957 – volenti non fit iniuria – claimant
knows about + willingly accepts the risk
S.2 (4)(a) Warnings
Roles v Nathan [1863]
Was warning:
- Specific or general?
- Location / size (Rae v Mars [1990])
- Hidden or obvious danger? Rae v Mars
- Type of visitor?
Exclusion of common duty of care invalid.
S.2(1) UCTA 1977 – any attempt to exclude death /
personal injury caused by negligence - VOID
- of no legal effect
- ‘at your own risk’
S.2(2) UCTA 1977 – any attempt to exclude damage to
property, financial loss caused by negligence – SUBJECT TO
REASONABLENESS
Trespasser = ‘Someone who goes onto land without an
invitation, and whose presence is either unknown to the
occupier or if known is objected to’ per Lord Dunedin –
Addie v Dumbreck (1929)
British Railways Board v Herrington (1972)
Duty of common humanity owed to non visitors for injury
only due to state of premises – Particularly children
A Child can be Volenti non fit injuria
Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006) – 11year old
injured climbing on fire escape
Occupier / premises as defined in 1957 Act
Liability to non visitors subject to 3
conditions
(a) occupier’s awareness of danger
(b) knowledge of trespasser’s presence/
likely presence
(c )risk is one which the occupier should
reasonably protect the trespasser from
White v St Albans City Council (1990)
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
[2004] – 18 year old dived into shallow water
in lake.
In the case of Donoghue v Folkestone
Properties (2003) the claimant dived into a
harbour in the middle of a winter’s night and
broke his neck. The owner of the harbour was
not liable because it had no reasonable
ground to believe that anyone would be in
the vicinity of the danger. If a claim is
successful under the 1984 Act, damages will
be awarded for personal injury only (s.1(8)).
Contributory negligence
Volenti Non Fit Iniuria
Known risks that have been accepted
Warnings s1(5) OLA 1984
Death or personal injury only.
No claim for damage to property available under OLA 1984.
