Occupiers Flashcards
Occupiers liability act 1957
Occupier must take reasonable steps to ensure visitors and other people on the land are reasonably safe
Occupiers liability act 1984
Occupier must take reasonable steps to ensure trespassers and those using right of way reasonably safe
Who is an occupier?
Not defined in legislation.
An occupier as a person who has sufficient degree of control of the premises that he ought to realize that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person coming lawfully there. It is not necessary for a person to have entire control over the premises. You need not have exclusive occupation. Two or more people maybe occupiers. (Wheat v Lacon)
Wheat v Lacon
The primary case for definition.
Facts: the defendant owned a pub which he entrusted to a manager and gave the manager permission to live with his wife on the first floor and take in paying guests.
Principle: There was nothing in law to prevent there being more than one occupier of a premises. Here the defendant along with the manager were the occupiers of the staircase but neither have breached their duty as a lightbulb had been recently removed by a stranger.
Harris v Birkenhead
The defendant local authority was held to the occupier of a vacant building due for demolition, even though it had never entered or taken possession of it.
Who is a visitor?
Section 1(2) OLA 1957. Those who have express or implied permission to enter the premises. They include those who enter in the exercise of a right, such as a fireman, but does not include those using a right of way.
Lowery v Walker, Edwards v Railway Exec
The contrasting opinion where the court found that those who regular use a shortcut across the defendant’s land had an implied permission to be there, but later where the defendant had repeatedly tried to fence a railway line from children, it was held that a repeated trespass did not confer a license.
Darby v National Trust
There is no general duty to warn about obvious risks. A man drowned while swimming in a deep and murky pond on the defendant’s property, it was held that the occupier had not been required to put up a sign warning of the obvious dangers.
The Calgarth
An entrant can be a visitor in one part of the premises but not in another. It was said that when you invite a person into your house to use the stairs, you do not invite him to slide down the bannisters.
Ferguson v Welsh
Unauthorized subcontractors on a building site were visitors in relation to their immediate employer, but trespassers to the owner of a property
The history of Duty of care owed to trespassers
At one time, occupiers could only be liable for deliberately or recklessly causing harm to trespassers (Addie v Dumbreck). Following Addie, This position was greatly modified until where it was established that ‘a duty of common humanity’ was a by occupiers to trespassers. Then 1984 act was passed.
Revill v Newberry
Facts: The defendant lay in wait for vandals who had been damaging his allotment shed. He shot at them through a hole in the door, and during one of them.
Held: Although they were trespassers, the 1984 act did not apply. This was because the source of the damage was the defendant occupier’s action in shooting rather than the state of the premises. He was however liable under common law negligence. The injured vandal was held to be 2/3 contributory negligent for his injury. The court was concerned to point out the fact of being a criminal trespasser did not make the claimant beyond the protection of civil law.
Keown v Coventry Healthcare
Held that A 11-year-old trespasser who fell from a fire escape had no duty owed to him because his accident was due to his climbing onto the fire escape rather than its condition.
Donoghue v Folkstone Properties
The accident occurred when the claimant dived of a slope in midwinter. Although the occupier had knowledge of trespassers in the summer, it had no reason to suspect their presence in the winter and so section 1 (3)(b) had not been established. Time does matter.
