2B - Occupiers Liability - 1957 Act

Question 1

Who does Occupier’s Liability 1957 relate to?

Answer 1

Visitors

Question 2

What are the steps for proving Occupier’s Liability under the 1957 act?

Answer 2

1. Who is an occupier
2. Who is a visitor
3. How does s.1(3)(a) define premises
4. State of the premises
5. The duty of care
6. Variation in the standard of duty - children
7. Variation in the standard of duty - experts
8. Has the D discharged the duty
9. Warnings
10. Faulty work of an independent contractor
11. Risk factors
12. Defences

Question 3

Step 1. Who is an occupier?

Answer 3

Harris v Birkenhead: The D was in occupation as they were effectively in control of the premises

Wheat v Lacon: HOL decided both the manager and employers could be occupiers so there could be more than one occupier of the premises

Question 4

Step 2. Who is a visitor?

Answer 4

Someone with:

1. express or implied permission, eg. invitees, licensees (implied - Lowery v Walker)
2. statutory/legal rights of entry, eg. emergency services, utility workers
3. permission due to contract, eg. cinema-goers with a ticket, guests at a hotel

Question 5

Step 2. Who is a visitor: What did Scrutton LJ say in The Calgarth?

Answer 5

‘When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you did not invite him to slide down the bannisters, you invite him to use the staircase in the ordinary way in which it is used’

Question 6

Step 3. How does s.1(3)(a) define premises?

Answer 6

There is no statutory definition of premises except in s.1(3)(a) which refers to ‘premises’ as ‘fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle, and aircraft’

Haseldine v Daw: a lift is included as premises
Wheelar v Copas: a ladder is included as premises

Question 7

Step 4. The ‘state of the premises’

Answer 7

The occupier’s duty under s.1(1) is in respect of damage caused by the state of the premises

ie. the land or buildings have an existing underlying problem

Ogwo v Taylor

Question 8

Step 5. The duty of care under s.2(2)

Answer 8

the occupier must take reasonable care to see that visitors will be reasonably safe using the premises for the purposes of their visit.

^^^ the keep the visitor safe, NOT the premises. Visitors can be reasonably safe if they take reasonable care of their own safety

This doesn’t require the occupier to make the premises completely safe for the visitor - only to do what is reasonable

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway: occupier need only protect against foreseeable risks

Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral: the state of the premises must pose a real source of danger before foreseeability of the risk of damage can be found

Question 9

Step 6. Variation of the standard of care: what section is the duty in relation to children found

Answer 9

s.2(3)(a)

Question 10

Step 6. Variation of the standard of care: What does s.2(3)(a) say?

Answer 10

An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults

• An occupier must guard against any form of allurement (glasgow corporation v Taylor)
• You can expect young chidlren to be supervised (Phipps v Rochester)
• the type of hamr must be foreseeable (Jolley v Sutton)

Question 11

Step 7. Variation of the standard of care: what section is the duty in relation to experts found

Answer 11

s.2(3)(b)

Question 12

Step 7. Variation of the standard of care: What does s.2(3)(b) say?

Answer 12

appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to their job

Roles v Nathan: The dangers were special risks ordinarily incident to their calling. The warnings issued were clear and the D’s would have been safe had they heeded the warnings.

Question 13

Step 8. Has the occupier discharged the duty?

Answer 13

An occupier/defendant may seek to show that they have discharged their duty by arguing:

• warnings under s.2(4)(a)
• faulty execution of work by an independent contractor engaged by the occupiers under s.2(4)(b)

Question 14

Step 9. Warnings under s.2(4)(a)

Answer 14

The warning must be enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe, so the occupier should make sure the nature of the risk is clearly and specifically pointed out to those who come onto the land

Question 15

Step 9. Warnings under s.(4)(a): What requirements must be met for a warning sign to be effective?

Answer 15

1) the warning must cover the danger that in fact arises
2) on the other hand, there is no duty to warn against obvious risks

Question 16

Step 9. Warnings under s.(4)(a): Why was the warning in Rae v Mars Ltd not sufficient?

Answer 16

Where danger is extreme or unusual, it is not enough for there to be a warning; a barrier or additional notice should be placed

Question 17

Step 10. Faulty work of an independent contractor under s.2(4)(b): What are the 3 conditions that must be satisifed?

Answer 17

1. Was it reasonable to hire an independant contractor? (Haseline v Daw: reasonable to hire someone to repair a lift)
2. Was the contractor competant? (Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club: wasnt competant, stunt team had no insurance and used an unpaid ameteur who was burnt and broke him arm. Club hadn’t exercised reasonable care in choosing safe and competant contractors)
3. Had they taken reasonable steps to check the work was properly done? (Woodward v Mayor of Hastings: child was injrued on icy steps. Easy to check if the wirk was done properly)

Question 18

Step 11. Breach

What standard must the occupier reach in relation to Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks?

Answer 18

the ‘reasonable occupier’

Question 19

Step 11. What risk factors may be considered when deciding if the occupier met the standard of care expectd by the reasonable occupier?

Answer 19

1. Potential likelihood of harm (Haley v London Electricity Board)
2. Potential seriousness of harm (Paris v Stepney Borough council)
3. Cost of prevention (Bolten v Stone)
4. Social benefit of the conduct (Watts v Herts CC)

Question 20

Step 12. What defences are available to Occupiers Liability Act 1957

Answer 20

Contributory Negligence
Consent
Exclusion causes

Question 21

Step 12. Defences for Occupiers Liability Act 1957: Contributory negligence

Answer 21

Partial defence
Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 the claimants damages can be reduced according to the C’s responsibility for the damage suffered
Eg. Sayer v Harlow: the C’s damages were reduced by 25%

Question 22

Step 12. Defences for Occupiers Liability Act 1957: Consent

Answer 22

Complete defence
To succeed it must be shown thta the C fully understood the nature of the risk and accepted the risk
Eg. Geary v JD Wetherspoon: C decided to clide down the bannisters in a pub which had a stair case with an unprotected drop to the marble floor below. She fell 4m and suffered severe injuries. Her claim failed

Question 23

Step 12. Defences for Occupiers Liability Act 1957: Exclusion causes

Answer 23

Only available to traders
Residential occupiers can restrict and exlude their liability for an injury caused to the visitor if they have provided awarning sign (s.2(1) OLA 1957).

However, under s.65 Consumer Rights Act 2015 a trader (eg a shop) cannot exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury

Question 24

Step 13. Remedies

Answer 24

The C’s remedy is damages or compensation. The occupier is liable for damage including death, personal injury and damage to property (s.1(3)(b))