Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Occupier's Liability (Who is the Occupier? (1984 Act states that the…

- - - - Sets out duty towards people who enter premises with the occupier's permission
    - - Explains the duty towards people who enter premises without permission
  - - - Potential injustice as well as over complexity and confusion which gave a huge amount of litigation
      - Widely criticised and in 1954 the Law Reform Committee suggested a legislation to clarify the law was needed
        
        OLA 1957 established 1 standard of care to cover all categories of people who entered the premise with permission
        
        Less complex and more consistent law
        
        Did not solve the people who entered with no permission problem though
        
        Became seen as more unjust as a few cases emerged of children entering land with no permission and being injured
        
        Led to OLA 1984 which established occupiers duty of care for the safety of people who enter without permission - more limited that the 1957 Act though
- - - - This covers those who own property, rent or live/work there and people can be in control of premises without physically being there
        
        Harris v Birkenhead (1976)
        
        The owner was renting out the premise but upon move out, did not board up the house as often happened to keep children from playing on the premise. This led to a child being injured. The tenant was sued and argued that they were not the occupier because they had not taken over possession of the house. The COA disagreed saying that the sale of the house meant the council had the legal right to control the house and this meant they could be considered the occupiers
  - - - Common example is Landlords and tenants
        
        Wheat v Lacon (1966)
        
        HOL stated that a person was an occupier if he or she has a sufficient degree of control over the premises that he ought to realise that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person coming lawfully there and therefore both the defendants and landlord were occupiers however, evidence proved them both not liable for the lodger (claimants) death
- - - - The premise was held as a digging machine used to construct a tunnel