tresspassers anmd the 1984 act

• The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 imposes a more limited duty toward trespassers, only covering personal injury, not damage to property.
• The 1984 Act uses a subjective test – the occupier must have actual knowledge of the danger and must know or reasonably believe that a trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger. This is inconsistent with the objective standards used in most of tort law.
• For example, in Donoghue v Folkestone Properties (2003), the court found no liability, as the accident happened in winter at night, and the occupier didn’t know anyone would be there. This suggests the outcome of a claim may depend on the time of day/year, which seems illogical.
• Similarly, in Rhind v Astbury Water Park (2004), D wasn’t liable because they didn’t know about the submerged container – even though the danger was real, lack of knowledge meant no duty.
• This approach can be criticised for failing to protect vulnerable trespassers (e.g. children) or innocent mistakes, but it aligns with public sentiment that wrongdoers shouldn't profit from their own actions.