1957

• Act 


  • Occupiers Liability Act 1957
• Duty of care 


  "Common duty of care on the occupier of premises in respect for all lawful visitors"

  • Occupier
  • Premises
  • Lawful visitors
• Occupier 


  -" anyone with a sufficient degree of control over the premises" (Wheat v Lacon)

  • Could be owner, tenant
• Premises 


  • virtually anything
  • give examples
  • whoever owns it is the defendant
• Lawful Visitor 


  • Express- specifically invited
  • Implied- permitted to be there
  • Can become trespassers if they exceed their permission
  • Children must be given adequate extra protection(s.2(3)(a))
• Breach of duty 


  s.2(2), "the occupier should take care as is reasonable, to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited or permitted to be there"

  • Reasonable man test- special skills
• Risk factors- breach 


  • Risk of serious injury- Stepney v Borough Council
  • Likelihood of harm- Bolton v Stone
  • Cost of avoiding harm- Latimer v AEC
  • Time of Breach- Roe v minister of health
  • Value of D's activity- Watt v Herts CC
• The Calgarth 1927 


  "if you invite someone to your house to use the staircase you are not inviting them to slide down the banister"

  • Occupier not liable if the visitor does not that reasonable care of themselves or behaves inappropriately or beyond what is expected or allowed.
• Independent Contractors 


  s.2(3)(b)- if the visitor is a tradesman or has some special knowledge and that is the reason for his visit then the occupier can ecpect them to take any care for special risks

  • Roles v Nathan- contractor must protect themselves from special risks
  • Page v Read- Owner can pass liability to contractors who take over part of the land
  • Haseldene v Daw- occupier can only rely on this if they did not know that the work was faulty
• Warning Notices


  s.(2)(4)(a)- warning notices will only remove D's liability if they are enough to make the visitor reasonably safe- they do not automatically remove liability

  • Occupier not liable for no warning if danger is obvious (Staples v West Dorset Council)
  • Where warnings are needed they need to be visible (Rae v Marrs)
• Contributory negligence 


  • Claimant can only sue in personal injury
  • if they were partly at fault for the damage caused their reward will be reduced by the percentage of fault
• Exclusion Clauses 


  • s.65 of the Consumer Rights Acts (2015)- it is unlawful for the occupier to exclude liability for death or personal injury- so a notice to this effect will not work