evaluation of occupiers liability

• Evaluation

  There is better protection to lawful visitors than unlawful visitors. S.2(2) of the 1957 act a common duty of care is owed and they need to be kept reasonably safe. S.1(3)of the 1984 act if the criteria is met then a statutory duty of care is owed which means they must be kept not injured. The law imposes a higher duty of care under common law than statutory law as the law knows the unfairness in putting a burden on an occupier for unlawful visitors as they are breaking the law in the first place. However, ensures a higher health and safety standards by the occupier.
• Evaluation

  It may be argued that liability is too easy to discharge via warning signs. Under s.2(4)(a) of the 1957 act states an occupier may discharge the duty of care via warning signs. This seems similar to the 1984 act where in the case of Tomlinson, (explain). The biggest issue with warning signs are their effectiveness. For example they could be small, visibility may be poor, and they may be unclear. This is seen in the case of Glasgow v Taylor (explain)
• Evaluation

  Children are owed greater protection. Under s.2(3)(a) of the 1957 act, children are owed a higher duty of care from the occupier as the law recognises children are more likely to be more reckless than adults. Also, where allurements are presented, occupiers need to take further responsibility. This is seen in the Glasgow (explain).Even with older children, the law expects occupiers to provide greater care as seen in the case of Jolley v Sutton(explain). However, the law also recognises parents must take responsibility as seen in Phipps v Rochester(explain)
• Older children are still owed a higher duty of care case

  Jolley v Sutton - where the council were held liable as it was reasonably foreseeable that the boys would be injured on the abandoned boat and therefore, they should have taken extra preventative measures.
• Evaluation

  There is a lack of statutory definitions under occupiers liability and therefore many have come from common law. This is seen  in the case of wheat v lacon where the definition of an occupier was stated. Another example is in the case of wheeler v corpas where the judge decided the definition of premises and this included a ladder. This goes against the separation of powers where the role of the judiciary is to apply the law, not make it. Judges applying their own interpretation using the different rules means there is inconsistency in the law which can lead to hairsplitting. 
• Occupiers liability comes from both statute law and common law. This area of tort involves the liability of an occupier to both lawful and unlawful visitors to their premises. The occupiers liability act 1957 covers the DOC owed to lawful visitors. The types of damage covered under this act is death, personal injury and property. Under S.2(2) lawful visitors are owed a common duty of care meaning they need to be kept reasonably safe.
• Contrastingly, the occupiers liability act 1984 covers the statutory duty of care owed to unlawful visitors. If the criteria under s.1(3) is met, the unlawful visitor must not be injured. The types of damage covered under the 1984 act is death and personal injury. In the case of Wheat v Lacon, it was established that the occupier was the person with the degree of control.~