Occupiers' liability Flashcards
Does an occupier owe a common duty of care to all their visitors?
Yes
- Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 governs duty owed by occupiers to visitors
- Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 governs duty owed by occupiers to non-visitors
What type of loss is occupier’s liability concerned with?
Loss caused by…
Loss caused by state or condition of premises or things done or omitted to be done during occupation of such premises
Does an ‘activity’ on the premises come under occupier’s liability?
No, occupier’s liability relates to ‘state of premises’ rather than activity on it
A separate negligence claim would be more appropriate
Tomlinson - C dived into shallow water of lake, hit head and sustained serious injury - HOL held risk of C suffering injury did not arise from any danger due to state of premises but from C’s acitivity of diving into shallow water
What type of loss can a visitor claim for?
Personal injury and property damage
But an OUP MCQ said loss of work can be claimed
What is the duty of care owed to visitors by the occupier of a premises?
Take such care as is reasonable in all circumstances to see that visitor will be reasonably safe in using premises for the purposes for which they were permitted by the occupier to be there
What must be established re C and D to find an automatic duty of care?
That C is a visitor and D is an occupier
Who is an ‘occupier’?
Someone who has a sufficient degree of control over the premises
Question of fact
Will the owner always be the occupier?
No! Liability is based on occupancy/control and not ownership
In these 4 situations, who is the occupier…
- Landlord does not live in property
- Landlord retains some part of premises like common areas
- Landlord issues a licence
- Occupier employs independent contractor
From Wheat - Ds owners of pub who granted managers licence to use top floor of private accomodation and paying guests - C (paying guest) fatally injured while using staircase with faulty handrail - who was occupier of the stairs?
- Landlord not living on property = tenant is occupier
- Landlord retains some part of premises like stairways = they are the occupier of those parts
- Landlord issues a licence = they remain an occupier
- Occupier employs an independent contractor = occupier is generally responsible
Can there be multiple occupiers?
Yes! Sufficient degree of control can be shared with others
Exclusive occupation not necesary
What is a ‘premises’? Is it limited to buildings?
Any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
Obviously land and buildings. mainly
Has included a ladder
Who is a (lawful) ‘visitor’?
Persons who have express or implied permission to be on occupier’s premises
Inc those with lawful authority or contractual permission to be on prem
Can express/implied permission be limited?
So that visitor becomes trespasser?
Yes
e.g. ‘no unauthorised entry’
How can express permission be limited?
3 different ways
- Area
- Time
- Purpose
If limiting express permission by area, what does this mean for visitor entering a denied area and what must the occupier make clear and ensure about the sign?
- Means visitor might not be owed a duty if visitor enters an area to which they are denied permission
- Occupiers must make clear as to areas where visitors are denied access and location of any sign must be appropriate
- Pearson - child in animal enclosure at a circus was attacked by a lion - no signs indicating this was a private area = she was a visitor
- Darby - inconspicuous sign in a car park saying no bathing in pond but car park not next to sign and a lot of other information on sign - court held D had not done enough to turn C into trespasser
If limiting express permission by time, what must be the case?
Must be made clear to visitor e.g. opening hours
Stone - manager of pub permitted function to be held upstairs after licencing hours, at 1am guest fell down stairs and died = guest was a visitor
If limiting express permission by purpose, what does this mean for visitor if they go beyond purpose they were invited on to premises for?
They will no longer be a visitor - and may become a trespasser - if they go beyond purpose they were invited onto premises for
Tomlinson - made clear to C lake was to be used for canoeing, fishing and windsurfing only - once C started swimming he became a trespasser not a visitor
How does implied permission exist and what are the 2 classic examples? How can this be limited?
Permission exists because of occupier’s behaviour, for example…
- Postman has implied permission if they have to walk up a garden path to deliver letters
- People using shortcut have implied permision if they regularly use shortcut, D knows about this and does nothing about it
Can be limited by notice
Cf Edwards - spot on railway used as a shortcut on regular basis - fence repaired whenever damaged but beaten down by people wishing to use as a shortcut - C was hit by train = did not have implied permission as D took reasonable steps to prevent people using railway as a shortcut
What is lawful authority and contractual authority?
Lawful authority = police officers with warrant/person with statutory right (e.g. gas board official) can enter premises as lawful visitors with or without permission
Contractual authority - implied term that entrant who enters premises under terms of contract is owed a common duty of care (unless express provision to contrary)
Are those using a public or private right of way covered by statutory occupier’s liability?
- Public = No! Must rely on common law
- Private = yes
Are those accessing National Parks regarded as visitors?
No but they are owed a duty of care
What is the standard of care owed by an occupier to a visitor?
That of the reasonable occupier; reasonable care to see visitor will be reasonably safe in using premises for purposes for which they were permitted by the occupier to be there
Objective test
How do personal characteristics affect standard of care owed?
Where the occupier is aware of a vulnerability of the visitor, they are reasonably expected to take steps to guard against it
Pollock - blind C visited friend and fell out open window on second floor - occupier must have regard to such known vulerability - blindness = open window unsafe = D should have warned C/ kept window closed
What is the standard of care owed to child visitors?
Higher! An occupier should be prepared for children to act less careful than adults (especially where danger is an ‘allurement’ e.g. bush of poisonous berries)
Jolley 14 y/o started repairing boat abandoned by D council and it fell over and crushed him (was child’s fault) - council liable as it was reasonably foreseeable boat would be allurement to children