Occupiers liability essay:

• One of the differences of Occupiers liability is that under the 1984 act is that there is a limited amount of claims that are allowed through the civil court systems due to them not being able to claim personal injury if you are a trespasser. This was justified by Lord Hoffman in Tomlinson V Congleton DC (2003). This means that there is a reduced risk pf a compensation culture and it protects the defendant from having tom pay any compensation when there wasn’t suppose to be anyone there.
• However on the 1957 act allows claims for personal injury and any damage to property suffered on another’s property. This means that there is an increased risk of a compensation culture due to the limited barriers that are required to prove Occupiers liability. This could lead to unjust outcomes for the defendant. 
• Another difference between the two acts is that the Occupiers liability act 1957 requires an occupier to do everything that is reasonable to ensure the visitor will be reasonably safe which is an objective test. This follows the standard approach to tort claims, where the defendant’s acts or omissions are judged objectively. This allows for the claimant to receive the right amount of compensation due to their injuries. This also meets the aim of tort which is to provide compensation for the injured person.
• However under the 1984 act, the occupier has to be aware of the danger and has to know, or has reasonable grounds to believe, that the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger. This subjective test is very inconsistent compared with most other torts. This means that each claim under the 1984 act will depend on its own facts. This makes it very difficult for the lawyers to advise the claimants whether or not they could claim for compensation. An example to show this is Donoghue V Folkestone Properties (2003).
• Another difference between the two Occupiers liability act is with regards to children. The 1957 act does not require the court to consider whether the premises are safe for the visitors who is injured. This reduces the burden on occupiers which means that there is a fair balance between the competing interests. However under the 1984 act, a duty is owed if the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the injured trespasser some protection. This is fair due to the main aim of tort is compensate the injured if they have been lawful or not.
• However some people might seem that it is unjust due to them having to pay out compensation for people that have entered the land/property unlawfully. This means that there might lead to an increase in cases being backlogged in the court process. Thus leading to a delay in other cases.
• One of the similarities between the two acts is that it is necessary to identify the particular danger before one can see to what (if anything) the occupier’s duty is” which was stated in McCombe LJ in Edward’s V Sutton LBC (2016). The 1984 act requires the occupier to have actual knowledge of the danger, whereas this is not required by the 1957 act. So, for a claim under the 1957 act, if an occupier has no knowledge of the danger then they will not owe a duty.
• This was shown in Rhind V Astbury (2004), where the occupier had no knowledge of a submerged container on which the claimant trespasser was injured, and was not liable. Furthermore under the 1984 act, there is no obligation on the occupier to check for any danger on the premise. This allows for a fair balance between the parties and to provide justice for the parties.