Occupiers' Liability

• Occupiers Liability is the duty of care occupiers have to visitors on their premises.
• There is no statutory definition for "occupier".
• Occupiers are seen to have sufficient control over a premises. There can be one occupier, more than one, or none at all.
• s1(3) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 outlines "premises": "Any fixed or moveable structure. Including any vessel, vehicle, and aircraft"
• State of premises is when the premises hasn't been maintained very well and there is something hazardous that the occupier hasn't dealt with.
• Occupiers Liability Act 1957: lawful visitors
• Invitees are people who have permission to be on the land.
• Licensees are people who have permission to be on the land for a particular period of time.
• Contractual Permission is when, by a contract, you can be on the land. For example, a ticket for a concert.
• Statutory right of entry usually comes when the police doing something like exercising a warrant.
• s2(2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957, for most people we owe a "common duty of care".
• Cole v David-Gilbert, The Royal British Legion and Others: The occupier has to act reasonably.
• Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme: You've got to keep the person reasonably safe.
• The Occupiers Liability Act 1984: unlawful visitors (trespassers)
• Trespassers are still owed a basic duty of care but they can only claim for personal injury up to death. They are not entitled to having their stuff protected.
• s1(3)a: Aware of danger

  Rhing v Astbury Water Park
• s1(3)b: Aware others may come into contact with the danger

  Higgs v Foster
• s1(3)c: Was it something you should have protected against?

  Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
• There are also "special groups" like children and contractors.
• Children are less careful and therefore require more in a duty of care.
• Contractors are experts in their field and are hired to complete a specific task.

  Roles v Nathan
• Children can be attracted to things that bring danger.

  Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
• Courts may be reluctant to find the occupier liable when young children are hurt because they should be under "parental supervision"

  Phipps v Rochester Corporation
• Baldaccino v West Wittering: child trespassers
• Defences include: Having a sign and shifting blame onto the contractors
• s2(4)a Occupiers Liability 1957: Occupier put up a sign that was "clear and sufficient".
• s2(4)b Occupiers Liability 1957: Blame can be moved to the contractor, especially if you can't check the work yourself.
• Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club: The contractor must be competent to carry out the task.
• Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings: The occupier must check the work has been properly done.