1957 - Lawful Visitors

• Introduction

  This Act makes the occupier of the premises owe a duty of care to lawful visitors. If this duty is breached and the visitor is injured, then the visitor is entitled to receive compensation.
• Section 2 ( 1 ) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957

  Occupier will owe a general common duty to all lawful visitors.
• Section 2 ( 2 ) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957

  Occupier should see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in the premises.
• Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme


  Occupier doesn’t need to make the premises completely safe or guarantee safety.
• Section 2 ( 3 ) ( b) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957

  Occupier can expect the visitor to appreciate and guard against any special risks.
• Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell


  There isn’t a common duty to prevent everyday trips and falls, and the duty only arises when there is a present risk which creates a ‘real source of danger’.
• Section 2 ( 3 ) ( a ) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957

  Occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults, premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age.
• Taylor v Glasgow Corporation


  Occupiers must expect children to be less careful than adults and they have a responsibility to protect against hidden dangerous allurements.
• Bourne Leisure v Marsden


  The duty to keep the premises reasonably safe for child visitors does not extend to making parents aware of dangers which are clear and obvious.
• Tradesperson

  If a tradesperson is injured whilst on premises, then the occupier could owe them a duty of care as a lawful visitor.

  However, the tradesperson will not be allowed to claim from the occupier if they acted recklessly and without care.
• Roles v Nathan


  Tradesperson must guard themselves as risks of their trade, especially if they have warned about these.
• Section 2 ( 4 ) ( b ) of the 1957 Act (Defence for Occupier for the work of a tradesperson.)

  3 part test for liability:

  1 - Reasonable to hire a contractor.

  2 - Contractor must be competent

  3 - Occupier must take reasonable checks to inspect the work.
• Defences

  Warning signs - Section 2 ( 4 ) ( a ) can be a full defence, but must be enough to keep the visitor reasonably safe.

  Exclusion Clauses - can be a full defence.

  Contributory Negligence - Compensatory damages can be reduced to reflect level that the C contributed to injury or damage.

  Volenti - Consented to risk of injury.
• Remedy

  C, if successful, will be entitled to a remedy of compensatory damages for the personal injury AND property damage.
• Ao3 - The current legal position of two statutes covering the law, provides justice to both C and D.


  DP- Previously, law was complex and confusing. Now it’s easier to understand, results in consistent applications. Lay people will understand.

  WDP- Previous law was complex (different lawful visitors were owed a different duty of care), General common duty to keep visitors reasonably safe is simple and consistent.
• Ao3 - Two acts of Parliament in this area of law and there is still a lack of definitions.


  DP- No definition of ‘occupiers’, results in wide interpretation. Wheat v E. Lacon - court found a number of occupiers liable.

  WDP- Section 1 (1)(3) gives a brief and broad definition of ‘premises’. Wide interpretation is used (ladders, vehicles, lifts etc). Law is unclear for lay people.
• Ao3 - Occupier can easily avoid liability through the use of defences under both acts.


  DP- Warning signs and Exclusion clauses, fair of occupier as it places responsibility on the lawful visitor. Rae v Marrs - sign needs to be sufficient (near the danger and states danger).

  WDP- Volenti is a full defence while contributory negligence is a partial defence. Fair on occupier as they will not be found liable and damage has been reduced.
• Ao3 - The OLA 1957 is unfair regarding allurements, as there is no statutory definition.


  DP- This is unfair for occupiers regarding to children as there is no definition for ‘allurement’, so it’s open to interpretation.

  WDP- Means occupiers may decide something is not an allurement but the courts might disagree. Taylor v Glasgow Corporation, berries were seen as allurements (fair), but the parents should be liable for not keeping a close eye on their child.