Tort of Occupier’s Liability 1957 and 1984
Statutory and case law grid
Tort Law Occupiers Liability Statutory and case law grid
Act of Rule Case name and date / Case details Outcome Significance /A03
Parliamen statutory sections
t
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and 1984
OLA 1957 Occupier Wheat v Lacon [1966] HLDs An occupier is the person in control of the Both the brewery and the licensee Wider than just the owner:
OLA 1984 premises. of the pub (manager) were the owner, tenant, licensee
occupiers
OLA 1957 Premises S1(3)(a) OLA 1957 Land and building No full statutory definition
OLA 1984 Extends to fixed or moveable structure including vessels, vehicle and aircraft
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
OLA 1957 Duty of care S2(2) OLA 1957 Take such care in all the circumstances as is reasonable that the visitor will be reasonably safe
on occupiers
OLA 1957 Claimable Death
damage Personal Injury
Damage to property
OLA 1957 Lawful visitor S1(2) Invitees The common duty of care is to take A person will be classed as
Licensees such care as in all the circumstances a visitor if they have
of the case is reasonable to see that permission to enter the
the visitor will be reasonably safe in premises. Permission may
using the premises for the purposes be express or implied.
for which he is invited or permitted Anyone without permission
by the occupier to be there. is classed as a trespasser
and the 1957 act will not
apply.
S5(1) Pursuant to a contract Where persons enter or use, or bring When a person is perusing
or send goods to, any premises in a contract, the person in
exercise of a right conferred by control of the premises
contract with a person occupying or owes them a duty of care to
having control of the premises, the protect them against the
duty he owes them in respect of dangers or any potential
dangers due to the state of the harm.
premises or to things done or
omitted to be done on them, in so
1
Tort of Occupier’s Liability 1957 and 1984
Statutory and case law grid
far as the duty depends on a term to
be implied in the contract by reason
of its conferring that right, shall be
the common duty of care.
S2(6) Exercising a statutory right For the purposes of this section, Anyone who enters a
persons who enter premises for any premise for any reason with
purpose in the exercise of a right a statutory right, are to be
conferred by law are to be treated as treated as permitted by the
permitted by the occupier to be occupier whether they have
there for that purpose, whether they permitted this or not.
in fact have his permission or not.
Implied Allurement – Taylor v Glasgow City Council [1922] Council liable to child’s parents as Glasgow Corporation
they were aware of the danger and was liable. Children were
the berries amounted to an entitled to go onto the
allurement for the child. land. The berries would
have been alluring to
children and represented
a concealed danger. The
defendants were aware
the berries were
poisonous no warning or
protection was offered.
OLA 1957 Duty /standard Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway D had fitted slip resistant tiles and mopped the Shop owners took reasonable care The premises do not have
of care to keep [2002] floor when it had been raining. C slipped and to ensure customers were safe. Not to be completely safe. Only
visitors broke her ankle. liable as did not have to make the has to make premises
reasonably safe shop completely safe. reasonably safe for visitors.
Dean of Rochester v Debell C was injured when fell over some concrete. Court of Appeal has overturned a Obligation by occupier is
[2016] ruling which awarded damages to a reasonable not guaranteed
pedestrian who sustained injury safety.
after tripping and falling over a small Risk is reasonably
piece of concrete while walking in foreseeable only where
the grounds of a cathedral. The court there is a real source of
ruled that the cathedral was not danger which a reasonable
liable. person would recognise.
Cole v RBL [2007] C was injured when foot became trapped in a hole Court Appeal: Failed. Injury nearly Duty of care can’t last
on village green. Claimed against the RBL and the 2years after maypole been in place, longer than reasonable.
Council duty of RBL could not last that long.
No evidence but hole must’ve been
opened by stranger so pure accident.
2
Tort of Occupier’s Liability 1957 and 1984
Statutory and case law grid
G4S v Manley [2016] Power cut in prison. Delay in restoring power. C Found liable as claimant called for The decision did not impose
had limited mobility following an operation. C was assistance but there was a delay so a higher standard of care on
injured trying to use the toilet in dark. he used the toilet himself. prisons; it turned on the
knowledge held by prison
officers, how it was
communicated up the chain
of command, and how
quickly the prison should
have responded to it.
OLA 1957 Duty/standard of S2(3)(a) Occupier must ensure that premises are An occupier must be prepared for Additional special duty
care towards reasonably safe for a child of that age children to be less careful than owed to child visitors. For
children: adults. If an occupier allows a child children the standard of
to enter the premises, then the care is SUBJECTIVLEY
Allurement premises must be reasonably safe according to the age of the
Age for a child of that age. child.
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor Child poisoned by berries growing on bush in park. Council liable to child’s parents as Occupier had to protect
[1922] they were aware of the danger and child visitors from
the berries amounted to an allurements.
allurement for the child.
Phipps v Rochester Corporation Young child injured when falling into a trench on Council not liable. Occupier can expect
[2016] council land. parents to supervise very
young children.
Jolley v London Borough of Boys age 14yrs were injured whilst attempting to Court Appeal: Claim failed. Although Occupier is liable for
Sutton [2000] repair an abandoned door in the park. boat was obvious allurement, course injuries suffered by children
of action taken by the boys and that are reasonably
therefore the specific type of injury foreseeable.
was not foreseeable.
OLA 1957 Duty/standard of S2(3)(b) Duty/ Standard of care towards carrying out a An occupier may expect that a The occupier will owe a
care towards trade. person, in the exercise of his calling, tradesman coming into the
trades people will appreciate and guard against premise a common duty of
any special risks ordinarily incidental care. However, those
to it, so far as the occupier leaves carrying out a trade, are
him free to do so. therefore expected to take
measures to avoid the risks
associated with it.
Roles v Nathan [1963] Two chimney sweeps died of carbon dioxide D’s not liable as could have expected Occupier can expect
poisoning while unblocking D’s Chimney. chimney sweeps to be aware of the workmen to appreciate and
particular danger. guard against risks that are
3
Tort of Occupier’s Liability 1957 and 1984
Statutory and case law grid
incidental to their work.
OLA 1957 Duty/standard of S2(4) Independent Contractors If in all the circumstances the General rule is than an
care towards occupier acted reasonably in occupier will not be liable
independent entrusting the work to the for harm caused by
contractors independent contractor and had independent contractors on
taken such steps (if any) as he their property if all three
reasonably ought in order to satisfy conditions are satisfied. A
himself that the contractor was reputable contractor will be
competent and that the work was covered by their own
properly done. insurance.
Haseldine v Daw [1941] Claimant killed when a lift plunged to the bottom Occupier not liable for negligence It must be reasonable for
of a shaft. repair or maintenance of the lift as the occupier to have given
this work is highly specialist activity the work to the
and it was reasonable to give the independent contractor.
work to a specialist firm. More specialist the work,
the more likely the occupier
to give the work to a
specialist.
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket club hired out a stunt team to carry out a Court Appeal: club was liable as The contractor hired must
Cricket Club [2003] firework display. Didn’t use ordinary fireworks and failed to take reasonable care to be competent to carry out
used amateur claimant for the stunt. Claimant choose safe and competent conmen. the task. Occupier should
broke arm when stunt went wrong. No insurance. check references or with a
trade association. Also
check contractors are
properly ensured.
Woodward v Mayor Hastings Child injured on school steps that were left icy Occupiers liable as failed to take Occupier must check the
[1945] after snow was cleared off them. reasonable steps to check work had work has been done
been done properly and the danger properly. E.g. Employ an
should have been obvious to them. expert – architect /
surveyor.
Warning notices S2(4)(a) Warning notices (discharges liability) Where damage is caused to a visitor If an occupier gives a visitor
by a danger which he had been a sufficient warning of that
warned by the occupier, the warning danger so the visitor is
Defences is not to be treated without more as reasonably safe, the
absolving the occupier from liability, occupier will not be liable
unless in all the circumstances it was for any damage suffered by
enough to enable the visitor to be the visitor as a result of that
reasonably safe. danger. D will have
discharged his duty.
4
Tort of Occupier’s Liability 1957 and 1984
Statutory and case law grid
Rae v Marrs Ltd [1990] C fell inside a deep pit inside a dark shed. The occupier was held to be liable A warning by itself may not
because the danger was immediately be sufficient especially if it
inside the entrance and so the cannot be seen.
waning was insufficient to safeguard
the visitor from the danger. (1984
OLA)
Westwood v Post Office [1973] Claimant was injured when he entered, as a The defendants were not liable as No duty of care is owed if it
trespasser to an unlocked room which had the the notice sufficient warning to an is not reasonable to expect
notice: ‘only the authorised attendant is permitted adult. C’s to be on property.
to enter’
Exclusion clauses S2(1) Exclusion Clauses (avoids liability) An occupier of premised owes the This means that the
same duty of care to all his visitors, occupier will, in any
except in so far as he is free restrict, warning, be able to limit or
modify or exclude his duty to any exclude completely his
visitor by agreement or otherwise. liability for any injury
caused to the visitor.
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
OLA 1984 Claimable Death
damage Personal Injury
No liability for damage to property
Unlawful visitors A person who has no authority to be in the occupiers’ premises OR A person can be both a lawful visitor and a trespasser in different
OLA 1984 Trespassers a visitor who has gone beyond their permission to be on the premises parts of the same building.
S1(3) An occupier owes a duty of care towards a trespasser only if all three conditions satisfied.
S1(3)(a) D aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that the danger exists.
S1(3)(b) D knows/ reasonable grounds to believe a ‘non-visitor’ is in, or may come into, vicinity of danger.
S1(3)(c) Risk is one, which in all circumstances D may be reasonably be expected to offer protection.
Standard of care S1(4) Standard of care only as is reasonable in the circumstances – objective test
owed by the
occupier
Adult trespasser Ratcliffe v McConnell [1999] 19-year-old student was seriously injured by Court appeal: obvious danger so Diving into a pool is an
OLA 1984 and obvious diving into a college pool late at night. occupier not required to warn adult obvious danger.
dangers trespasser from it. No hidden danger
5
Tort of Occupier’s Liability 1957 and 1984
Statutory and case law grid
as well known that pools vary in
depth and diving without checking
depth is dangerous.
Donoghue v Folkstone C was seriously injured by diving into the harbour Occupier did not owe C a duty of Time of the day and day of
Properties [2003] at midnight on boxing day. care under the 1984 act as they the year can also be an
would not except a trespasser to be obvious danger.
present or jump.
Tomlinson v Congleton Council C was seriously injured by diving into a lake. D did not owe a duty of care Danger has to be due to
[2003] Warning signs were posted prohibiting swimming premises. If trespasser
and diving. chooses risk, has to accept
responsibility. Not
reasonable to spend a lot of
money preventing visitors
from being injured by an
obvious danger.
OLA 1984 Child trespasser Keown v Coventry NHS Trust C, a 11yrs child, fell from a fire escape he had No liability where a child climbed up No liability if intentional act
and liability of D [2006] been climbing. a fire escape and then fell; and aware of the danger.
intentional act and no knowledge of
defendant.
Baldaccino v West Wittering 14yrs boy dived off a navigation bacon on the The court held that the claimant The case stands for the
[2008] beach and suffered serious neck injuries. He was a exceeded the terms of his implied proposition that older
lawful visitor to the beach but a trespasser to the license therefore was a trespasser children are more careful
beacon. under OLA 1987 and can be trespassers if
they exceed the terms of
their license.
Allurement Glasgow Corporation v Taylor Case suggests that an allurement may bring a child trespasser within the OLA 1957
[1922]
