OCCUPIER'S LIABILITY - DUTY TO TRESPASSERS (OLA 1984)

• WHEAT V E LACON & CO LTD 1966 - FACTS


  Mrs. Wheat rented a room at a pub owned by E Lacon & Co. While descending a dimly lit staircase, she fell due to the missing handrail and a bulb that had been removed, causing fatal injuries. Her husband sued, alleging negligence in failing to provide a safe environment. The case revolved around the question of who owed a duty of care – the owner, the pub manager, or both – in maintaining the premises.
• WHEAT V E LACON & CO LTD 1966 - DECISION


  The House of Lords held that both the manager and E Lacon & Co. owed a duty of care as occupiers under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. This duty included taking reasonable steps to ensure safety for lawful visitors. Thus, they were jointly responsible for keeping the premises safe
• WHEAT V E LACON & CO LTD 1966 - 


  This case established that multiple parties can be considered "occupiers" if they exercise control over premises, and they share responsibility for safety under the Occupiers' Liability Act. The duty applies jointly to any individuals or entities exercising control over areas used by visitors.
• TOMLINSON V CONGLETON BOROUGH COUNCIL 2003 - FACTS


  Mr. Tomlinson was injured after diving into a lake owned by Congleton Borough Council, despite "No Swimming" signs posted due to the lake’s dangerous conditions. He sued the council, arguing it owed him a duty to prevent such injuries. The council had initially planned to fence off the lake but had delayed these measures due to costs.
• TOMLINSON V CONGLETON BOROUGH COUNCIL 2003 - DECISION


  The House of Lords ruled in favor of the council, finding no duty to protect Mr. Tomlinson from self-imposed risks he knowingly accepted. The court decided that the law does not require landowners to prevent injuries caused by reckless behavior or to take steps limiting freedom due to obvious risks.
• TOMLINSON V CONGLETON BOROUGH COUNCIL 2003 - LEGAL PRINCIPLE


  This case reinforced that occupiers do not owe a duty to protect visitors from obvious risks inherent in their voluntary activities. It underscored that personal responsibility is a critical factor in assessing liability, limiting the duty of occupiers where visitors willingly undertake clear dangers
• ROBERT ADDIE & SONS (COLLIERIES) LTD V DUMBRECK 1929 - FACTS


  A child trespassing on land owned by Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd was killed when he was pulled into machinery. The child's family sued the company, arguing that it should have taken measures to prevent harm, especially given the foreseeable presence of children on the land near dangerous equipment.
• ROBERT ADDIE & SONS (COLLIERIES) LTD V DUMBRECK 1929 - DECISION


  The court ruled against the child’s family, determining that occupiers owed no duty of care to trespassers, regardless of their vulnerability or the foreseeability of their presence. The occupier’s responsibility was limited to refraining from causing intentional harm
• ROBERT ADDIE & SONS (COLLIERIES) LTD V DUMBRECK 1929 - LEGAL PRINCIPLE


  This case highlighted that at the time, occupiers owed minimal obligations to trespassers, with no duty to protect them from harm caused by dangerous conditions on their land. The law was later amended by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, which recognized limited duties towards trespassers.
• BUCKETT V STRAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL 2015 - FACTS


  In this case, Mr. Buckett, a school caretaker, was injured when he tripped over a broken paving slab on school grounds. The injury led him to sue Staffordshire County Council, alleging that the council, as the occupier, had failed to maintain the premises to a safe standard, violating its duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
• BUCKETT V STRAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL 2015 - DECISION


  The court ruled in favor of Mr. Buckett, establishing that Staffordshire County Council owed a duty to ensure reasonably safe premises for lawful visitors like employees. The council was held liable for failing to perform adequate maintenance and prevent foreseeable harm from the hazard.
• BUCKETT V STRAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL 2015 - LEGAL PRINCIPLE 


  This case emphasized that employers and occupiers must maintain safe premises under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, especially when hazards are foreseeable. It reiterated that reasonable maintenance is essential to satisfy the duty owed to visitors, reinforcing liability when neglect is evident
• BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD V HERRINGTON 1972 - FACTS


  A 6-year-old boy was electrocuted after entering a railway line through a broken fence, sustaining severe injuries. The railway company was aware of the broken fence but failed to repair it, despite knowing children often trespassed in the area. The boy’s parents sued the railway for negligence, claiming they should have repaired the fence or taken other measures to prevent children from entering the dangerous area.
• BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD V HERRINGTON 1972 - DECISION 


  The House of Lords held the railway board liable, establishing that occupiers owe a “duty of humanity” even to trespassers when they are aware of potential dangers. The court recognized that occupiers should consider the likelihood of trespassers in high-risk areas and take reasonable steps to protect them.
• BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD V HERRINGTON 1972 - LEGAL PRINCIPLE


  The case led to a significant development in occupiers' liability law by affirming a duty of care toward trespassers under certain conditions. The duty exists if the occupier knows or should know about potential dangers on their premises. This case influenced the 1984 Act by setting a precedent that occupiers cannot ignore foreseeable risks to trespasserS
• KEOWN V COVENTRY HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST 2006 - FACTS


  An 11-year-old boy climbed a fire escape on a hospital property to show off to friends, fell, and was injured. The fire escape was structurally sound and only dangerous if misused. The boy’s parents sued the hospital for failing to prevent the boy’s access to the fire escape, arguing that the premises posed a risk to children
• KEOWN V COVENTRY HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST 2006 - DECISION


  The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, ruling that the hospital was not liable for the boy’s injuries. The court found that the fire escape was safe when used properly, and the boy’s misuse was the sole cause of his injuries, not any inherent danger in the structure itself.
• KEOWN V COVENTRY HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST 2006 - LEGAL PRINCIPLE


  This case clarified that occupiers are not liable for injuries resulting from a trespasser’s deliberate misuse of a safe part of the premises. The 1984 Act does not impose liability if the injury is due to the trespasser’s own actions and not a defect or inherent danger on the occupier’s property.
• RHIND V ASTBURY WATER PARK LTD 2004 - FACTS


  Mr. Rhind suffered a severe injury while diving into a lake owned by Astbury Water Park, hitting his head on a submerged object that wasn’t visible from the surface. The water park had signs prohibiting swimming but had no knowledge of the submerged object. Rhind argued the occupier had a duty to prevent harm to trespassers by properly assessing the dangers in the lake
• RHIND V ASTBURY WATER PARK LTD 2004 - DECISION


  The Court of Appeal found in favor of Astbury Water Park, ruling they weren’t liable because they had no actual knowledge of the specific hidden danger. Without prior knowledge, they could not be held accountable under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.
• RHIND V ASTBURY WATER PARK LTD 2004 - LEGAL PRINCIPLE


  This case underscored that liability under the 1984 Act depends on the occupier’s actual awareness of a danger. If an occupier is unaware of the specific hazard, they do not owe a duty to protect trespassers from it. Occupiers are not expected to protect against unknown risks on their premises.
• RATCLIFF V MCCONNELL AND HARPER ADAMS COLLEGE 1997 - FACTS


  Mr. Ratcliff, a college student, scaled a locked gate to access an outdoor pool at night while intoxicated. He dove into the shallow end, suffered serious injuries, and sued the college, claiming they had a duty to prevent such accidents by securing the pool further or warning against diving
• RATCLIFF V MCCONNELL AND HARPER ADAMS COLLEGE 1997 - DECISION


  The Court of Appeal held the college was not liable for Ratcliff’s injuries, as the risks of diving into a pool without checking the depth were obvious. The court ruled that Ratcliff had willingly accepted these risks by choosing to dive.
• RATCLIFF V MCCONNELL AND HARPER ADAMS COLLEGE 1997 - LEGAL PRINCIPLE

  This case confirmed that occupiers owe no duty to protect trespassers from self-imposed risks that are obvious and inherent. Under the 1984 Act, occupiers are not liable for injuries resulting from a trespasser’s own actions when the risks are clear and voluntarily undertaken
• DONOGHUE V FOLKSTONE PROPERTIES LTD 2003 - FACTS


  Mr. Donoghue trespassed onto a harbor owned by Folkestone Properties and dove into the water, hitting a submerged object and suffering injuries. The incident occurred during winter when the harbor wasn’t used recreationally. Donoghue argued that the occupier should have warned against diving, given potential underwater hazards.
• DONOGHUE V FOLKSTONE PROPERTIES LTD 2003 - DECISION


  The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, ruling that Folkestone Properties owed no duty since they couldn’t reasonably foresee that anyone would swim in winter. The court found that reasonable precautions depend on the time and circumstances of the risk.
• DONOGHUE V FOLKSTONE PROPERTIES LTD 2003 - LEGAL PRINCIPLE


  The case highlighted that under the 1984 Act, the occupier’s duty to protect trespassers considers the timing and circumstances. An occupier may not be liable if a risk arises from conditions unforeseeable during certain times or seasons
• SWAIN V NATUI RAM PURI 1996 - FACTS


  A young boy climbed over a factory’s poorly secured fence, sustaining severe injuries after falling from a roof. The factory owner was unaware children might attempt to climb the fence but had not taken measures to secure the premises. The family sued, claiming the occupier should have foreseen children trespassing in that area.
• SWAIN V NATUI RAM PURI 1996 - DECISION


  The Court of Appeal ruled against the claimant, stating that the duty to protect trespassers requires actual knowledge of a risk. Since the occupier didn’t know or suspect children would climb the fence, they owed no duty of care.
• SWAIN V NATUI RAM PURI 1996 - LEGAL PRINCIPLE


  This case clarified that the 1984 Act limits the duty of care to situations where the occupier has actual or constructive knowledge of potential trespassers and hazards. An occupier is not expected to predict every potential risk without evidence of past incidents
• HIGGS V FOSTER 2004 - FACTS

  A police officer investigating a theft entered private property without permission and fell into an unmarked inspection pit, sustaining serious injuries. He sued the property owner for failing to mark the hazard. The owner argued that he was unaware the pit would pose a danger to lawful visitors or trespassers
• HIGGS V FOSTER 2004 - DECISION


  The Court of Appeal found for the property owner, ruling that he was not liable since he had no reason to anticipate anyone would be near the pit. The officer was also a trespasser, lowering the duty owed to him
• HIGGS V FOSTER 2004 - LEGAL PRINCIPLE

  Higgs v Foster emphasized that occupiers’ liability under the 1984 Act is conditional on foreseeability of the trespasser’s presence. Without reasonable expectation of the trespasser’s presence near a hazard, occupiers are unlikely to be held liable for injuries resulting from obscure dangers