Tort: Occupiers Liability

• Occupiers Liability is a specialist area of negligence
• Unlike most negligence cases, there is no need to ponder over common law to decide whether an occupier owes a "duty of care"
• The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and Occupiers Liability Act 1984 set out fixed criteria
• We need to focus on whether the occupier breached their duty, whether it caused damage to the claimant, and if any defenses apply
• Different rules apply depending on whether the claimant is a lawful visitor or a trespasser
• Lawful visitors are covered by the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 57), while trespassers are covered by the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (OLA 84)
• Section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 states that an occupier owes the same duty of care to all visitors, except where the duty is extended, restricted, modified, or excluded by agreement
• The common duty of care is to ensure that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted by the occupier
• In determining if the occupier has discharged the duty of care, all circumstances must be considered
• Premises can include any fixed or moveable structure, including vessels, vehicles, or aircraft
• An occupier can impose restrictions on activities carried out on the premises
• A reasonable standard of care is expected, but it is impossible to ensure visitors are 100% safe
• The law expects occupiers to guard against known dangers
• In cases like Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002), occupiers are expected to do all that could be reasonably expected to ensure safety
• Our task in Occupiers Liability questions is to determine if the occupier breached the common duty of care
• Section 2(3) specifies that an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
• Some responsibility lies with the parent or guardian in cases involving visiting children
• Premises: The premises in question were an "abandoned" boat
• Occupier: The occupier of the premises was the council, specifically Sutton LBC
• Allurement: The "abandoned" boat acted as an allurement, attracting children to it
• Adults vs Children: An adult would avoid an "abandoned" boat, but a child would be drawn to it
• Liability for Skilled Visitors: Skilled visitors, like electricians, are expected to guard against the risks of their profession
• Roles v Nathan (1963): Two chimney sweeps died from carbon-monoxide poisoning while repairing a coke-fired boiler. The occupier was not liable as men in their trade should have known of the danger and how to deal with it
• Salmon v Seafarer Restaurants (1983): The owner of a chip shop leaving a fryer on all night was held liable for injury to a firefighter, as firefighters still face risks even if they exercise all the skill of their calling
• Independent Contractors: Liability can be passed on to contractors if it was reasonable to contract the work out, the occupier ensured the contractor was competent, and checked that the work was properly done
• Haseldine v Daw (1941): The claimant was injured in a lift accident, and the landlord was not liable as it was reasonable to contract out the complex engineering work
• Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust (2002): Enquiring into a contractor's competency extends to inspecting the contractor's resources to cover negligence, such as their insurance certificate
• Woodward v Mayor of Hastings (1945): The occupier must ensure that work, even if not complex, has been properly done to avoid liability
• Warnings to Lawful Visitors: Warnings do not absolve the occupier from liability unless it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe
• Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977: Limits on excluding or restricting liability for personal injury or death resulting from negligence
• Consumer Rights Act 2015: Trader cannot exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence in consumer contracts
• Staples v West Dorset District Council (1995): No warning sign was needed for a slippery wall as the danger was obvious
• Rae v Mars (1990): Where there is an unusual danger, a warning alone may be insufficient to make the visitor reasonably safe
• Trespassers: Occupiers owe a lower duty of care to trespassers, but should make reasonable efforts to make them safe if aware of a danger on the premises
• Occupiers' Liability Act 1984: Determines the duty owed by an occupier of premises to persons other than visitors in respect of any risk of injury on the premises
• Occupiers Liability Act 1984
• An occupier owes a duty to take reasonable care to see that others do not suffer injury on the premises by reason of a danger
• The duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case
• The duty is discharged by taking reasonable steps to warn or protect others
• Liability under the Act is for injuries caused by a dangerous premises, not a dangerous activity