Occupiers liability

• What is the primary focus of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?


  It governs an occupier's duty towards lawful visitors.
• What does the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 address?

  It addresses an occupier's duty towards trespassers.
• How has the law recognized the duty of occupiers towards visitors since the 19th century?

  The law recognized that occupiers have a duty towards the safety of visitors who come onto their land.
• How are visitors classified under the law regarding occupiers' duties?

  Visitors are classified as contractors, invitees, licensees, and trespassers, each with different duties owed by the occupier.
• What is the highest level of duty owed by an occupier?

  The highest level of duty is owed to contractors, ensuring the premises are fit for the purposes of the contract.
• What duty is owed to invitees, such as customers in a shop?

  Invitees are owed a duty to take reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual dangers.
• What duty is owed to licensees, such as a friend invited to a house?

  Licensees are owed a duty to warn of any concealed danger or trap known to the occupier.
• What is the duty owed to trespassers?

  Trespassers are owed no duty of care, except that the occupier cannot deliberately or recklessly cause them harm.
• What significant change occurred following the Law Reform Committee report in 1957?

  The Occupiers Liability Act was passed, providing a statutory duty on the occupier towards lawful visitors.
• What does the statutory duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 entail?

  It entails a duty in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or actions taken or omitted on the premises.
• Who can be considered an occupier under the Occupiers Liability Acts?

  Occupiers can be owners or tenants of the premises, but there is no statutory definition of an occupier.
• What case established that a manager can be considered an occupier even without ownership rights?

  The case of Wheat v E Lacon & Co. Ltd (1966) established this principle.
• What was the outcome of the Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976) case?

  The court decided that the local council was in occupation of the premises as it was effectively in control, despite not having taken possession.
• What was the ruling in Bailey v Armes (1999) regarding liability?

  The court decided that neither the supermarket nor the defendants were liable as control over the means of access was insufficient for liability.
• What is the statutory definition of premises according to the 1957 Act?

  Premises include any fixed or moveable structure, including vessels, vehicles, and aircraft.
• What types of structures have been held to be included as premises?

  Structures include ships in dry dock, vehicles, lifts, and ladders.
• What was the outcome of the Ansley case in 1996 regarding liability?

  The court decided that the claim was purely in negligence and the fact that the defendant was an occupier was not relevant.
• What does the common duty of care entail for lawful adult visitors?

  It requires the occupier to take reasonable care to ensure the visitor is reasonably safe while using the premises.
• Who are considered lawful adult visitors under the Act?

  Lawful adult visitors include invitees, licensees, those with contractual permission, and those with statutory rights of entry.
• What does the case of Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002) illustrate about occupiers' duties?

  The case illustrates that occupiers must take reasonable care but are not required to make premises completely safe.
• What did the court comment regarding the safety of visitors in Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme?

  The court commented that the safety of visitors is not guaranteed and that reasonable precautions are sufficient.
• What did the Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral (2016) case determine about minor defects?

  The court determined that minor defects do not necessarily impose liability unless they pose a real source of danger.
• What is the significance of foreseeability in determining an occupier's liability?

  Foreseeability is significant as it determines whether there is a real sense of danger that obliges the occupier to take remedial action.
• What could happen if courts decided in favor of visitors in cases of minor defects?

  It could open the floodgates to a tide of claims against occupiers and create a very high level of responsibility.
• What are the key duties owed by occupiers to different types of visitors?

  • Contractors: Highest duty to ensure premises are fit for purpose.
  • Invitees: Reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual dangers.
  • Licensees: Duty to warn of concealed dangers known to the occupier.
  • Trespassers: No duty of care, except not to cause deliberate or reckless harm.
• What are the main components of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?

  • Governs duty towards lawful visitors.
  • Imposes a common duty of care.
  • Requires occupiers to ensure visitors are reasonably safe.
• What are the main components of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984?

  • Governs duty towards trespassers.
  • Imposes a different duty than that for lawful visitors.
• What are the implications of the cases Wheat v E Lacon & Co. Ltd and Harris v Birkenhead Corporation regarding occupiers?

  • Wheat v E Lacon: Managers can be occupiers without ownership.
  • Harris v Birkenhead: Control of premises can establish occupation even without possession.
• What does the case of Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme illustrate about the common duty of care?

  • Occupiers must take reasonable care.
  • They are not required to make premises completely safe.
• What does the Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral case highlight about minor defects?

  • Minor defects do not automatically impose liability.
  • Liability depends on whether there is a real source of danger.
• What must be present for an occupier to be liable for injuries on their premises?

  There must be something over and above the risk of injury from minor blemishes and defects.
• When is a risk considered reasonably foreseeable?

  A risk is reasonably foreseeable when there is a real sense of danger that a reasonable person would recognize.
• What is the common duty of care imposed on occupiers regarding visitors?

  The common duty of care requires occupiers to keep visitors reasonably safe, not necessarily to maintain completely safe premises.
• What must the state of premises pose for foreseeability of risk to be found?

  The state of premises must pose a real source of danger.
• What could have been the consequence if cases had been decided in favor of the visitor?

  It could have opened the floodgates to a tide of claims against occupiers and created a very high level of responsibility for visitor safety.
• What happens to a lawful visitor who exceeds their permission on the premises?

  They may become a trespasser and lose the protection of the 1957 Act.
• What does the duty of care not extend to regarding accidents?

  The duty does not extend to liability for pure accidents.
• In the case of Coley David Gilbert, what was the claimant's injury related to?

  The claimant was injured when she trapped her foot in a hole in a village green.
• What was the outcome of the Coley David Gilbert case in the Court of Appeal?

  The court held that the duty on the British Legion could last that long, and the incident was deemed a pure accident.
• What special duty is owed to child visitors under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957?

  The occupier must ensure that the premises are reasonably safe for children, who are expected to be less careful than adults.