Occupier's Liability Act 1984

• Occupier's Liability Act 1984

  This deals with the duty owed to non-lawful visitors, such as trespassers, on the premises. It outlines occupiers still owe a duty of care to trespassers if they are aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists. The duty is to take reasonable care to ensure that trespassers are not injured by any danger on the premises.
• Background of the duty

  Common law traditionally outlined there was no duty of care for trespassers.

  Change in law: British Rail Board v Herrington. Established a duty of 'common humanity' towards trespassers, especially children.
• Duty

  Act applies to non-lawful visitors injured due to danger on the premises, compensates for personal injuries, not property damage, with the understanding that trespassers have less protection than lawful visitors. Section 1 (1)
• Duty

  Under Section 1 (3) the occupier will only owe a duty of care if:

  • he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists
  • aware or reasonable to believe the other is in the vicinity of the danger or will come into it
  • risk is one that in these circumstances he should offer protection
• Standard of care

  Laid out in Section 1 (4): Care owed is objective, based on each cases circumstances, with more precautions expected for greater danger. Practicality of precautions and trespasser's age considered.
• Adult trespassers

  In cases involving adult trespassers, occupiers are generally not held liable if the risk was obvious or if they had no reason to expect the trespasser's presence. (Ratcliff v McConnell)
• Adult trespassers

  When accidents happen and if the danger was clear based on the time and place of the matter. (Donoghue v Folkestone Properties)

  Occupiers aren't required to spend a lot of money in requirement to make their property ultra safe against obvious dangers (Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council)
• Adult trespassers

  If an occupier couldn't anticipate trespassers then they are not liable (Higgs v Foster)
• Adult trespassers

  Occupiers aren't liable if they didn't or couldn't know about the danger (Rhind v Astbury Water Park)
• Child trespassers

  Child trespassers are subject to the same legal rules as adult trespassers. (Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS) (Baldacino v West Wittering)
• Defences

  Contributory Negligence

  Consent (Volenti)

  Warning notices (Westwood v Post Office) not a defence for children.