OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT 1984 - UNLAWFUL VISITORS

• This act gives protection to trespassers as the OLA 1984 s.1(1) states that the occupier can be liable for injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them
• Under s.1(3)(a)


  s.1(3) imposes a duty of care on occupiers if the occupier is aware of the danger on their premises (an objective test). In rhind v Asbury D was not liable at this point because they could not have known of the submerged hazard in their lake

  A02) surely D is aware/not aware as the reasonable occupier would know the risk of harm on their premises
• Under s.1(3)(B) 


  Secondly, Under s.1(3)(B) it will then be asked whether D knows that someone may enter the area of the danger (again objective) . In higgs v foster the claim failed on this point because it was not foreseeable that someone may come to the area

  A02) is it reasonably foreseeable that someone may enter the vicinity of danger ?
• s.1(3)(c)


  C) the risk is such that in the circumstances he may be expected to offer some protection

  If so s.1(4) imposes a duty to take reasonable care to see that the trespasser is not injured by that danger
• Providing the answer to above is affirmative s.1(3)(c) asks whether it is reasonable to offer some sort of protection? Proving the reasonable person would we have a duty situation , to test whether D has applied the standard of the reasonable occupier s.1(4) asks whether the protection D did offer was reasonable?

  A02) discuss relevent risk factors if D appears to break his duty because of what caused the claimants injury. ONLY IF IT IS REASONABLE TO OFFER PROTECTION WOULD THE OCCUPIER HAVE A DUTY OF CARE TOWARDS THE OTHER