1957

• Occupier, defined under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, is someone 'in control' of a premises, as established in cases like Wheat v Lacon and Harris v Birkenhead
• In cases like Bailey v Armes, the court may find that no one is in control of the premises
• To move a claim to a contractor for injuries caused by their negligent work, the occupier must satisfy 3 requirements:

  1. It was reasonable to hire the contractor (Haseldine)

  2. The occupier checked the contractor was qualified and insured (Bottomley)

  3. The occupier checked the work was completed (if possible) (Woodward)
• The occupier owes a common duty of care to tradesmen but can expect the contractor to know the risks of their trade; if the contractor is injured due to their failure to guard against risks, the occupier is not liable (Roles v Nathan)
• For child visitors, the occupier owes the common duty of care with an added special duty, as per S.2(3) OLA 1957, which states the occupier must be prepared for the child to be less careful than adults (Glasgow v Taylor)
• The Phipps defence suggests young children should be supervised, but the lack of a clear definition of 'young child' poses an issue as it could vary for different individuals
• Lawful visitors, defined as those with express or implied permission, include invitees, licensees, contractual permissions, statutory rights of entry, and implied permissions (Lowery v Walker)
• The duty of care for lawful visitors requires taking reasonable steps to ensure they are reasonably safe while on lawful business (Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway)
• The definition of 'premises' under the 1957 Act includes 'any fixed or movable structure including a vessel, vehicle, and aircraft', with examples expanding to houses, offices, buildings, land, ships in dry docks, vehicles, lifts, and scaffolding