OLA 1984

• What is the main issue arising under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

  C is not a lawful visitor but may have a claim under the Act.
• What must be proved to establish a duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

  All parts of s.1(3) must be proved.
• What are the definitions of occupier, visitor, and premises under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?


  • Occupier: Someone who has control over the premises (Wheat v Lacon/Harris v Birkenhead).
  • Visitor: Includes those with express or implied permission, legal right of entry, and contractual rights.
  • Premises: Refers to land or buildings and any fixed or moveable structure including vessels, vehicles, or aircraft.
• What is the significance of the cases Wheat v Lacon and Harris v Birkenhead in determining occupiers?

  They illustrate the definition of an occupier when not in physical occupation.
• What does the term 'exceeding permission' refer to in the context of occupiers' liability?

  It refers to individuals who go beyond their granted access, such as entering through a locked door.
• What does the duty under s.1(1) OLA 1984 pertain to?

  It pertains to any danger due to the state of the premises.
• In Keown v Coventry, what was determined about the fire escape?

  The fire escape itself was not dangerous; the danger arose from C's decision to climb on it.
• Under what conditions is a duty owed according to Section 1(3)(a) of the OLA 1984?

  The occupier must be aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists.
• What was the outcome in Rhind v Astbury Water Park regarding occupier liability?

  There was no liability as the occupier did not know about the objects under the water.
• What does Section 1(3)(b) require regarding the occupier's knowledge of trespassers?

  The occupier must have reasonable grounds to believe that others are in the vicinity of the danger.
• How do the cases Swain v Natui Ram Puri and Scott v Associated British Ports differ in terms of occupier liability?

  Swain involved no reasonable grounds to believe anyone was near the danger, while Scott involved prior incidents alerting the occupier to potential trespassers.
• What does Section 1(3)(c) state about the risk and the occupier's duty?

  The risk must be one against which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer protection.
• In Tomlinson v Congleton BC, why did the House of Lords rule that the Council did not owe a duty?

  It was unreasonable to require the Council to protect the claimant from himself regarding obvious dangers.
• What factors are relevant in determining whether an occupier should protect a trespasser?

  • Purpose of entry (e.g., burglar vs. innocent child)
  • Age and capabilities of the trespasser
  • Financial resources of the occupier
  • Precautions taken and practicality of those precautions
  • Nature of the premises and degree of danger involved
• What is the duty under s.1(4) of the OLA 1984?

  To take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to prevent injury due to the danger.
• How does the duty under s.1(4) of the OLA 1984 compare to that under the 1957 Act?


  It is a lower duty than that owed under the 1957 Act.
• What does s.1(5) state about discharging the duty of care?

  • The duty can be discharged by taking reasonable steps to warn of danger or discourage entry.
  • Warnings do not need to keep the trespasser safe but should make them aware of the risks.
• In Tomlinson v Congleton BC, what action would have discharged the occupier's duty?

  Putting up a sign forbidding swimming would have discharged the duty.
• What does the case Platt v Liverpool CC illustrate about occupier responsibility?

  The occupier should not have to guard against an irresponsible and determined minority.
• When should causation be addressed in occupiers' liability cases?

  Only if a specific issue, such as the thin skull rule, arises.
• What does the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 state about damages?

  If C is partly to blame, damages may be reduced by the judge.
• In Sayer v Harlow, what was the outcome regarding C's compensation?

  C's compensation was reduced by 25% for trying to climb out of a locked toilet.
• What factors does the court consider when determining if C's actions were reasonable?

  The court considers whether it was an emergency situation or if C was a child.
• What is the defence of consent (volenti) under s.1(6)?


  It may be available if C knew of the risk and voluntarily accepted it.
• In Ratcliff v McConnell, why was C not liable for his injuries?

  C had consented to the risk by ignoring signs prohibiting use of the pool.
• What is the uncertainty regarding excluding liability under OLA 1984?

  • It is unclear if an occupier can exclude liability by posting a sign.
  • This means stating the occupier will not be liable for death or personal injury on the property.
• What is the remedy available to C under the OLA 1984?

  C's remedy would be damages for personal injury or death, but not for property damage.
• What is the significance of s.1(8) in relation to damages?

  It states that the occupier is liable for personal injury and death but not for damage to property.
• What should be considered if the examiner includes property damage in a scenario?

  • Property damage is not recoverable under the OLA 1984.
  • Focus on personal injury or death claims instead.