The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 - provides that an occupier of premises owes a duty of care to lawful visitors, and if that duty is breached resulting in the visitor suffering damage or loss then the visitor is entitled to receive compensation

Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 - set outs a different set of rules regarding trespassers who are injured on the occupiers property. This is more complex

Potential Defendants are the same under either Act - they will be occupier of premises who may be, but do not have to be, the owner or tenant of the premises. There is in fact no statutory definition of "occupier" in either of the acts

Wheat V Lacon - An occupier is a person in control of the premises

Bailey v Arms - a decision of who is in control of premises may be influenced by whose insurance policy covers the premises, however, sometimes the court may find that no one is in control of the premise of the premises leaving the injured visitor no claim

Section 2(1) a - common duty of care is owed to all lawful visitors

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme - the shop had taken reasonable precaution and there is also a duty on customers to take reasonable care regarding their own safety

Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell - tripping, slipping and falling are everday occurances. No occupier of premises like the cathedral could possibly ensure that the roads or the precincts around a building were maintained in pristine state.