comparing the two acts

• The 1957 Act imposes a broad duty using an objective test, while the 1984 Act imposes a narrower duty using a subjective test.
• This creates inconsistencies in the law: for example, a child visitor injured on unsafe premises might be compensated under the 1957 Act, but a child trespasser may get no compensation despite similar injuries.
• McCombe LJ in Edwards v Sutton (2016) said liability requires identifying a specific danger, especially under the 1984 Act. There is no obligation to check for hazards under this Act, which may seem unfair in some cases.