Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Occupiers Liability - Coggle Diagram
Occupiers Liability
Lawful visitors (OLA 1957)
Defintions
Occupier
Neither Act gives definition.
Wheat v Leacon
- the occupier has control over who enters the premises.
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation
- occupier doesn't have to be in physical possesion.
Wheat v Leacon 1966
Defendants owned a public house that was run by a manager & his wife who lived on the first floor. Given permission take-in paying guests.
Paying guest died on emergency staircase. Staircase was badly lit, as someone had removed the light bulb.
HoL held both managers & owners were occupiers.
No liability - as a stranger had removed the lightbulb they weren't responsible for the stranger's actions.
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation 1976
Defendant issued compulsory purchase order & notice of entry of a house allowing them to take over the premises after 14 days. Wasn't vacated for months. Once vacated, defendant didn't take any steps to board up.
Claimant (4y/o) entered house through unlocked door & was injured when fell from a second-floor window.
Sufficient defendant had legal right of control, therefore regarded as an occupier.
Premises
Defined in s 1(3) OLA 1957. They include; land, buildings and 'any fixed or moveable structure'.
The definition includes any vessel, vehicle or aircraft.
It has a very wide definition. Case law shows that it can include; a lift (as seen in Haseldine v Daw 1941) a park (Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council 2003) and a boat (Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council 2000
Visitor
Someone with implied/ express permission to be on the premises. (
Horton v Jackson 1996
)
S2(3)(a): Children
s2(3)(a) 'An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. If the occupier allows a child to enter the premises then the premises must be reasonably safe for a child off that age.'
Occupier will be allowed to assume that very young children will be accompanied by someone supervising them, can reduce the degree of care required by occupier
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)
= allurement to child
Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)
= reasonable supervision
Lord Devlin:
Responsibility for safety of little children must rest primarily upon the parents; it is their duty to see that such children are not allowed to wander about by themselves...
Simkiss v Rhondda Borough Council (1983)
= higher standards of care
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council (2000)
= allurement to child
s2(1): Duty of Care
'An occupier of a premises owes the same duty, the common duty of care to all his visitors, except in so far as he's free to and does extend, restrict, modify/ exclude his duty to any visitor(s) by agreement/ otherwise.
If duty is breached, claiment can bring action for:
Personal injury
Damage to property
NOT:
Pure economic loss
S2(3)(b): Common calling
A person who has entered premises to carry on theur common calling must identify and guard against any risks. S2(3)(b)
s2(2): Standard of care
'Occupiers have a duty towards visitors to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he's invited/ permitted to be there.'
Not required to provide absolute safety, would be impractical. Duty only to take reasonable care to make the visitor safe.
Defences
Warnings - [s2[4][a]]
If a visitor is given a sufficient warning for danger, the occupier will not be liable for any damage that the claimant suffers because of the danger.
The warning must refer to the precise risk or danger that the visitor would be facing.
S2(4)(b): Independent contractors
Liability will not attach to an occupier if it has been reasonable to give work to a competent independent contractor whose work has been checked, if appropriate.
Unlawful visitors (OLA 1984)
Scope of duty
'unlawful visitor' are people who go onto premises without permission. There are three categories people in the defenition:
trespassers:
have entered the premises without permission, or
remained on the premises once permission has expired or been withdrawn
can be in specific parts of building/land
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)
Claimant was visiting a public park and swam in a lake which was forbidden and it had put warning notices around the lake. The claimant ignored this and dived into a shallow part and injured himself. He became a trespasser when he dived in
those lawfully exercising to right to roam
those lawfully exercising a private right of way