Occupiers liability - trespassers

• Problem 1 - the level of protection owed to trespassers is lower than that under the 1957 Act 


  occupier must keep a lawful visitor 'reasonable safe' but only has to keep the trespasser 'from injuring themselves'

  • lower level of protection is fair and reflects public opinion about the status of trespassers, it seems only fair to compensate for personal injuries, balances the interests of both parties, however it seems unfair to a C who may not be compensated depending on the occupier's subjective knowledge
• problem 3 - liability can be avoided under the 1984 act if the D has placed an adequate warning sign in the vicinity of the danger, if the danger is obvious then no warning sign needed 


  (Ratcliffe v McConnell) - C was not owed a duty of care, he should have appreciated the obvious risk

  • unfair that 84 act was set up to give trespassers the rights to make claims, when judges seem to find reasons not to allow claims to trespassers, whilst this reflects public opinions, it does seem fair to make people take greater care for safety generally
• reform - judges imposing personal responsibility 


  with the 94 act, judges have imposed extra hurdles by with the rules on obvious risks when its unlikely that occupiers will be liable

  • if these claims had been decided in favour of the Cs, it is likely that many other similar claims would follow and the cost of insurance would rise for all