Occupiers liability act 1957+1984

• 2 Acts

  1. 1957 occupiers liability act (lawful visitors )
  2. 1984 occupiers liability act (trespassers )
• Key sections

  • section 1 (2) Occupier
  • section 2 (2) common duty
  • section 2 (3a) children
  • section 2 (3b) contractor
  • section 2 (4a) warnings
  • section 2 (4b) the work of a contractor - 1. contractor has to be reasonably skilled and qualified. 2. Take reasonable steps to check the work has been done properly.
  • section 2 (5) consent
• Lawful visitors

  Right or consent to be on the premises

  ’being invited’
• Occupiers

  • need to identify specific premises
  • Identify occupier (anyone that has control over the property)
  • Common duty to an occupier to ensure all lawful visitors ( duty to) are reasonably safe on the premises
• Considerations

  3 issues could rise:

  • Adult visitors
  • Children
  • Contractors
• Adult visitors

  • Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway supreme (2002))
  • Dean and chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell 2016
  • cole v British Legion
• Laverton V kiapasha

  • defendants owned a takeaway shop
  • C slipped and broke ankle due to wet floor from rain
  • Cost- defendants to reasonable care as they made sure the takeaway shop was safe and that the rain was not their personal problem
  • Defendants are not liable for this claim
  • Reasonable steps
• Dean and chapter of Rochester Cathedral debell

  • c was injured when he tripped and fell over a small lump of concrete
  • COA decided that tripping ,slipping and falling every day occurrences
  • For liability, there must have been something over and above the risk of injury from minor blemishes which are common
  • A visitor is reasonably safe, even if there may be visible minor defects on the road which is foreseeable
• Cole v British region

  • C injured trapping foot in a hole left by a may pole from an event over a year ago
  • Defendant had attempted to fill the hole, the council had not maintained village Green
  • No liability as this was a “pure accident”
• Contractors

  • Roles V Nathan 1963
  • Haseldine v Daw & Son Ltd 1941
  • Bottomley
  • Woodward v Hastings 1945
• Roles v Nathan

  • Two chimney sweeps died
  • Sweepers had been warned of the danger
  • The occupiers were not liable as they could have expected the chimney sweep to be aware of the particular danger (carbon monoxide)
  • General warning
• Contractors - Haseldine v Daw& Son Ltd

  • C was killed when the lift plunged to the bottom of a shaft
  • Occupier was not liable for this negligent repair or maintenance of the lift
  • This is a highly specialist activity and was reasonable to give the work to a specialist firm and appropriately qualified
• Bottomley v Todmorden cricket club

  • Cricket club hired a stunt team to carry out a firework display
  • They use an unpaid amateur with no experience for the stunt
  • C was burnt and had a broken arm where the stunt went wrong
  • Decided that the club reliable as they had to exercise reasonable care to choose safe and competent contractors
• Woodward v Hastings

  • Child was injured on school steps as they were icy after the snow had been cleared
  • Occupies reliable as they failed to take reasonable steps to check the work had been done properly
• Children - Glasgow v Taylor

  • seven-year-olds ate poisonous berries and died
  • was not fenced off in any way
  • Council was liable to the child parents
  • They were where the danger and the berries amounted to the allurement to the young child
• Jolley v London Borough of Sutton

  • Council had failed to move an abandoned boat on its land for two years
  • Children played on the boat and 14-year-old injured himself by trying to repair it
  • Children often find ways of putting themselves in danger
• Phipps v Rochester operation

  • Five year old child was playing on an open ground and fell down a trench and was injured
  • Court decided that the council was not liable
  • Parents should not let young children go to places that are potentially unsafe
• Board V Herrington

  • six year-old gets electrocuted and burnt- trespasser as he wasn’t supposed to be on the railway
  • Fence/barrier wasn’t effective as a child push through the gap was there for several months and did nothing to stop it
  • Owed duty of common humanity to trespassers
  • Overruled Addie v Dunbreck
  • create a common duty to humanity to keep our trespassers (children) from danger
• 1984 act- morality

  - act was aimed at ensuring trespasses were also covered by the common duty of care

  • Scope of duty is outlined in section one (3):
  • - Awareness of danger or reasonable grounds to believe it exists
  • - Nose or has reasonable grounds to know it exists others are vicinity of the danger
  • - The risk is one that they would be expected to offer some protection
  • S1(4) outlines the standard of care:
  • - Reasonable care to see the other is not injured
  • - In practice the courts have sought to limit this by introducing the idea of obvious danger
• 1984 act morality

  In practice the courts have sought to limit this by introducing the idea of obvious danger :

  • board v Herrington
  • Rhind v Astebury water park
  • Tomlinson v congelton
  • baldaccino v west wittering
  • keown v Coventry
  • Young v Kent
  • Ratcliffe v Mcconell
• Rhind v Astebury Water park

  • c dived into a lake despite sign saying no swimming - hurt themselves because of fibreglass
  • Not liable, no duty is unaware of glass and no breach as sign was reasonable warning
• Tomlinson v congelton

  • c dived into an artificial lake sign said no swimming
  • No liability as no danger.
  • Danger must come from property not c’s behaviour
• Baldaccino v West Wittering

  • C jumped navigation off beacon in the sea and cracked his head open
  • There was a duty but not breached
  • Lifeguards had warned them not and there were limits on visitors
  • Precautions were reasonable
• Keown v Coventry

  • 11-year-old child was injured when climbing the fire escape
  • No liability c’s behaviour not the property being dangerous
• Young V Kent

  • 12-year-old fell through damage skylight on roof in a school
  • Court ruled that premises were damaged and council knew so were liable
• Ratcliff v Mcconell

  • three students climbed a two meter wall and ignored shallow end signs
  • Defendants behaviour dangerous not property
• Warning signs

  • must be clear and positioned appropriately
  • An adequate warning will be a full defence
  • Rae v mars - warning sign about a deep pit inside a shed was not clear enough
  • Westwood v post office: no unauthorised personnel sign was enough to indicate no entry
• Duty of Care: According to section 1(3) OLA 1984, an occupier owes a duty to trespassers if:

  1. They are aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists.

  2. They know or have reasonable grounds to believe that trespassers may come into the vicinity of the danger.

  3. The risk is one against which they may reasonably be expected to offer some protection.
• Section 2(3)(b) - 1957 act 


  States that specialist/lawful visitor is expected to go against risk related to their specialism