2B.3.1 Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 (lawful visitors) Flashcards
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
Provides that an occupier of premises owe a duty of care to lawful visitors and if that duty is breached and the visitor is injured, they are entitled to compensation.
What is the remedy for Occupier’s Liability?
Compensatory damages for the injuries or damage suffered.
What is an occupier?
An occupier is whoever is in control of the premises.
Cases:
- Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd (1966): A pub manager and their employees could be the occupier. There can be more than one occupier of a premises.
- Harris v Birkenhead Corp (1976): A local council could be the occupier.
- Bailey v Armes (1999): The occupier must have sufficient control over the roof.
[Case - Definition of an occupier]
Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd (1966)
The manager of a pub was given the right to rent out rooms in his private area. He had no ownership rights in the premises. A paying guest fell on an unlit stair case and died. It was decided that both the manager and their employees could be liable. There can be more than one occupier of a premises.
[Case - Definition of an occupier]
Harris v Birkenhead Corp (1976)
A local council has served a compulsory purchase notice on a house but had not taken possession or made it secure. A 4-year-old boy was injured in the empty house. It was decided that the council were occupiers as they were effectively in control of the premises.
[Case - Definition of an occupier]
Bailey v Armes (1999)
The defendants lived in a flat above a supermarket. They allowed their son to play on the flat roof above the flat. The supermarket were unaware of this use. The boy took a friend with him and he was injured when he fell from the roof. Held: Neither the parents or the supermarket were liable, as neither had sufficient control over the roof.
Definition of premises
s1(3)(A) OLA 1957 defines premises as ‘any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft’.
Besides the obvious such as houses, offices, buildings and land, ‘premises’ has also been held to include:
* A ship in a dry dock
* A vehicle
* A lift
* A ladder
What is an adult lawful visitor?
Adult lawful visitors include:
* Invitees – people who have been invited to enter the premises
- Licensees – persons who have express or implied permission to be on the premises for a particular period and purpose.
- Those with a contractual permission to be on the premises – e.g. a person who has bought an entry ticket for an event.
- Those given a statutory right to entry, such as meter readers or a police constable exercising a warrant.
If a lawful visitor exceeds the permission, they have for being on the premises, they may become a trespasser.
Duty to adult lawful visitors
s(2)(2) OLA 1957 states the occupier has a duty to do what is reasonable to keep visitors safe.
The occupier does not have to make the visitor completely safe in the premises – only to do what is reasonable. As seen by the case of Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme.
The case of Dean of Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell emphasises the duty on the occupier to keep a visitor reasonably safe, not necessarily to maintain completely safe premises.
The common duty of care does not extend to liability for pure accidents, and a duty of care for risk cannot last indefinitely - as held by Cole v Davis-Gilbert, The Royal British Legion & Others (2007).
[Case - Duty to adult lawful visitors]
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002)
A shop had slip resistant mats, which the C slipped on because they were wet.
Held: D had made premises reasonably safe for visitors so they were not liable.
[Case - Duty to adult lawful visitors]
Dean of Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell (2016)
C fell on concrete from a broken bollard in a cathedral.
It was held:
1) Accidents happen, occupiers can only make the premises reasonably safe, not completely safe.
2) Risk should be reasonably foreseeable from real source of danger that a reasonable person should be.
[Case - Duty to adult lawful visitors]
Cole v Davis-Gilbert, The Royal British Legion & Others (2007)
C was injured when she trapped her foot in a hole where a maypole had been removed.
The claim failed because the injury took place nearly 2 years after the maypole had been removed – therefore the duty on the RBL could not last that long.
Duty to children
s2(3)(a) OLA 1957 states the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. The premises must be reasonably safe for a child of any age.
The standard of care is measured subjectively, according to the age of the child. The younger the child, the greater the care that the occupier must take to make sure the child is not injured.
The occupier should guard against any kind of allurement or attraction which places a child visitor at risk of harm. This was seen in the case of Glasgow Corp v Taylor.
Where very young children are injured, the courts are reluctant to find the occupier liable, as the child should be under the supervision of a parent or other adult. This was seen in the case of Phipps v Rochester Corp.
A difficulty is that there is no age limit set as to when this rule applies. It can be assumed that the rule applies to children up to primary school age – but probably doesn’t apply to children of secondary school age. As seen in the case of Jolley v London Borough of Sutton.
[Case - Duty to children]
Glasgow Corp v Taylor (1922)
A 7-year-old child died from eating poisonous berries from a shrub in a public park. The shrub was not fenced off. The council were liable as they were aware of the danger and the berries amounted to an allurement to young children.
[Case - Duty to children]
Phipps v Rochester Corp (1955)
A 5-year-old child was playing an open ground owned by the Council with his sister. He fell down an open trench and was injured. The Council was not liable as the court decided the occupier is entitled to expect that parents will not allow their young children to go to places that are potentially unsafe.
