Occupiers and premises

• Occupiers of premises had a duty of care towards the safety of visitors who came onto their land
• Occupiers


  Potential D's are the same under the Occupiers liability acts 1957 & 1984

  They will be occupiers of premises who may be, but do not have to be the owner of the premises.

  The test for deciding whether a person is the occupier is found in case law

  (Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd )
• Premises


  Fixed or moveable structure , including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft

  E.g. house, land , ship, lift or ladder
• The Occupiers Liability act 1957


  Outlines the duty of care owed to lawful visitors whilst on their premises
• The Occupiers Liability Act 1984


  Outlines the duty of care owed to trespassers whilst on their premises
• Discharging the duty of care 


  The work of independent contractors may harm visitors on a premises

  The the requirements to prove this are:

  • It must be reasonable for the occupier to have entrusted the work to the independent contractor
  • The contractor hired must be competent to carry out the task
  • The occupier must check the work has been done properly

  (Alexander v Freshwater Properties)
• Discharge by warning sign


  An occupier can fulfil their duty by placing a warning sign - effectively acts as a complete defence of breach.
• Trespassers - Imposing a duty of care

  The d does not automatically owe a duty of care to trespassers on their premises unless:

  • He is aware of the danger ( Rhind v Astbury Water park)
  • He knows of the possibility that trespassers may come in (Higgs v Foster)
  • The risk is one where it may be reasonable to expect him to offer some protection (Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council)