Occupier’s Liability

• Occupier’s Liability


  The OLA 1957 relates to lawful visitors.

  The OLA 1984 relates to trespassers.
• OLA 1957 - s.1(2)


  States that an ‘occupier’ is defined by the common law.

  Wheat v Lacon - an ‘occupier’ would include: owners; tenants; landlords; and independent contractors.

  S.1(3)(a) defined premises as a building, vehicle, vessel or aircraft
• OLA 1957 - s.2(2)


  sets out common duty of care for lawful visitors: the occupier is under a duty to keep the visitor reasonably safe for the purposes for which he is permitted to be there
• OLA 1957 - children


  Occupiers should expect children to be less careful than adults (s.2(3)(a)).

  Responsibility of children of tender years rests with the accompanying adult (Phipps v Rochester)

  Courts should never underestimate the ingenuity of children to find unexpected ways to cause mischief (Jolley v Sutton BC)
• OLA 1957 - s.2(4)(a)

  A warning may discharge the duty

  HWVR, there is no duty to warn against obvious risks (Darby v National Trust)
• OLA 1957 - s.2(3)(b)


  Applies to professional callers.

  This section states that an occupier can expect a professional person, in the exercise of their calling, to appreciate the risks ordinarily involved with it.

  Roles v Nathan - the D was not liable for the death of the 2 chimney sweeps killed by the carbon monoxide fumes while sealing up D’s boiler. Had they suffered injury by falling through a rotten floorboard, the position would have been otherwise
• OLA 1957 - s.2(4)


  Where a visitor suffers damage due to faulty work by an independent contractor, the occupier is not normally liable if, in all circumstances of the case: it was reasonable to entrust the work to an independent contractor ; the occupier took reasonable steps to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent; and the occupier took reasonable steps to satisfy himself that the work has been properly done
• OLA 1957 - nature of the work


  Haseldine v Daw - an occupier cannot be expected to inspect work of a technical nature

  Woodward v Mayor of Hastings - where the work is of a routine nature requiring no skill or expertise, the occupier may be expected to check it
• OLA 1984 - trespassers


  Offers a lower level of protection than OLA 57.

  A trespasser can only claim for death or personal injury, not for damage to his property (s.1(8)OLA 1984)
• OLA 1984 - occupier will owe a duty to a trespasser if:


  He is aware the danger or has reasonable fortunes to believe that it exists;

  He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the other is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into the vicinity of the danger;

  The risk is one in which in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection.
• OLA 1984 - s.1(4)

  Duty owed to trespassers is to take care to see that they are not injured on the premises by the danger concerned
• OLA 1984 - Children

  Occupiers should expect children to be less careful than adults (s.2(3)(a)).

  Responsibility for children of tender years with the accompanying adult (Phipps v Rochester)

  Courts should never underestimate the ingenuity of children to find unexpected ways to cause mischief (Jolley v Sutton BC)
• OLA 1984 - warnings


  Darby v National Trust - there is no duty to warn against obvious risks.

  Tomlinson v Congleton - the V was violent I when he ignored warning signs and dived into a lake.