Occupiers Liability Flashcards
What does the Occupiers Liability 1957 act cover?
The law requires that occupiers have a legal duty to keep the structure of their premises in a reasonably safe condition. This duty extends to, for example, a hotel owner taking care to ensure that floors are not too slippery when polished or cleaned.
The permission may be restricted in terms of time, place, and purpose. If the visitor does not comply with these restrictions, he will become a trespasser and will no longer be a visitor.
For example, if permission is given for a window cleaner to access a kitchen in the house to fill up a bucket of water, he will become a trespasser if he decides to go upstairs or into another part of the building.
Who is the occupier?
Wheat v Lacon states that the occupier is whoever is in control of the premises. If the premises are unoccupied due to works being done by for example a carpenter, shop fitter, etc works inside the building then the occupier would still be liable for the injuries caused to that person.
Can there be more than one occupier?
Yes, in Wheat v Lacon it is about a defendant that owned a pub run by a manager. The manager took in paying guests who stayed in the first floor rooms of the pub. One of the paying guests had fell down a flight of stairs and it was held that both of the defendants was held liable under the Occupiers Liability 1957. The reason why being is because both the owner and the manager were occupiers as they were in control of the premises at the time.
What is premises?
Premises is anything including building or open spaces or moveable structure like aircrafts or vehicle. (s(3))
What is the extent of the occupier’s duty?
An occupier must take reasonable care to ensure that visitors are reasonably safe. (S)(2)) Visitors are expected to take some responsibility and be aware of and avoid normal hazards. Therefore there is no need for occupier to eliminate all risk.
E.g., in Lewis v Six Continents (2005) a hotel owner who failed to ensure that an upstairs window had restricted openings did not breach his duty when the claimant (an adult male) fell out the window.
Who has the onus of proof in occupiers’ liability and a case that relates to this?
Cunningham v Reading Football Club (1991)
We have just seen that the occupier must take reasonable care. Therefore, an occupier is not liable just because someone suffers an injury.
The injured party will have to prove that the occupier failed to take reasonably adequate precautions to prevent it.
Cunningham v Reading Football Club (1991) – the claimant police officers were working during a football match. They were injured when members of a crowd threw lumps of loose masonry at them. It was discovered that the stands were in poor condition which led to lumps of masonry being used as missiles. It was held that the club was in breach of its duty. Due to past events, it was reasonably foreseeable that the crowd would be violent.
What is to be assessed in the standard of care took by the occupier?
Murphy v Bradford Metropolitan Council (1991)
Clare v Perry (2005)
To assess the standard of care, the type of hazard, the nature of the premises and the needs of visitors are all relevant. i.e., what is reasonable depends on the individual circumstances of each case.
Murphy v Bradford Metropolitan Council (1991) – a school caretaker had cleared snow twice from a notoriously slippery path before 8.30am.
The claimant was injured when they fell. It was held the school should have taken more care.
The nature of the path, the numbers of people using it and the severity of the weather demanded more care should have been taken.
a guest at the defendant’s hotel, chose to exit the hotel one evening by climbing over a perimeter wall rather than using a nearby official exit. As it was dark, she had not realised there was a six-foot drop on the other side of the wall. She fell, suffering serious injuries. She sued the defendant. It was held that the key question was whether the defendant had breached the common duty of care. In deciding the case, the court considered the behaviour which is reasonably expected of a visitor. The defendant was not liable as the claimant had behaved in a foolish way that was not reasonable for the defendant to guard against.
Whats the case that refers to risk assessment and compliance?
Bowen v National Trust (2011) – a tree branch fell, without warning, on a group of school children. Three were injured and one died. It was held the National Trust were not liable as the tree inspectors took reasonable care when assessing safety in the park and the injury was not reasonably foreseeable.
What do occupiers liability say about children and two cases where an occupier was held liable?
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)
Under s 2(3)(a) an occupier must expect children to be less careful than adults.
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922) where a child died after eating berries in the botanical gardens in Glasgow. The corporation was liable for not fencing off or placing warning signs near the shrub.
See also, B v JJB Sports (2006) where the claimant, a boy aged 10, slipped on a wet floor between indoor football pitches and sustained head injuries. The premises were owned by the defendant and the floor had recently been washed.
It was held that the defendant was liable under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 as it was foreseeable that the floor might be damp after cleaning, and he had failed to allow for children being less careful than adults.
Reasonable to assume children will be supervised by an adult
Talk about 2 cases where this happen
Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)
Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955) – a 5-year-old boy was injured when he fell into a trench on the defendant’s land. He was not being supervised by an adult. The Corporation was not liable as an occupier is entitled to assume that prudent parents would not allow their children to go unaccompanied to unsafe places.
Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden (2009) - The Marsden family were staying at a caravan park owned by Bourne Leisure. While Mrs Marsden was talking to another camper, Mrs Marsden’s 2-year-old son drifted away from his mother and drowned when he fell into a nearby pond.
It was held that Bourne Leisure were not liable. Bourne did not have a duty to fence the pond or to give a precise location of it. All visitors had been given a map showing ponds, river, and the beach. It would have been clear to any parent that it was dangerous to let a small unaccompanied child wander off on his own.
What does occupiers liability say about visitors with special skills?
An occupier is entitled to expect that a person carrying out his job on their premises will appreciate and guard against any special risk arising from his job.
They are seen as skilled, and an occupier is not liable for job-related accidents.
Are occupiers liable for the injuries to visitors caused by contractors?
Roles v Nathan (1963)
No, Under s 2(4) the occupier is not generally liable for injuries sustained by visitors from the actions of contractors.
The occupier would be expected to take reasonable precautions e.g., by selecting a competent firm and checking the completed work.
See Roles v Nathan (1963) – where the claimant chimney sweeps died from carbon-monoxide poisoning while cleaning a chimney. It was held that the occupier of the property was not liable because it was reasonable to expect chimney sweeps to know and guard against such a risk.
(Nb: We also covered this case in our negligence lecture)
What would be ways of discharging duty of care?
The best way of achieving this is to remove the danger e.g., if an entrance to shop gets slippery on wet days, then placing mats on the floor or installing a carpet will remove the danger of slipping and falls.
If it is not practicable to remove the hazard e.g., removal of a low beam in an old building, then an occupier must still take reasonable care to ensure visitors are safe. E.g., by placing warning signs and barriers in the building.
Are warnings required for obvious risks and provide a case that relates to this
Trustees of Portsmouth Youth Activities v Poppleton (2008)
No, warnings are not required for obvious risks
Trustees of Portsmouth Youth Activities v Poppleton (2008) – Poppleton was injured when he fell at a climbing centre. He attempted to jump but fell on his head and was badly injured. The climbing centre was fitted with safety matting.
It was held there was no breach of duty under the 1957 Act. The risk of falling was obvious and no reasonable person would expect the matting to protect against an awkward fall.
What are the 3 defences that can be used in Occupiers Liability Act 1957
1) Volenti non fit injuria - (the visitor accepts the risk) s2(5) states the duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by the visitor
2) Contributory Negligence - i.e., the degree of care a reasonable visitor can be expected to take is taken into account.
3) Exemption of liability – an occupier may exclude or restrict his liability to visitors if he gives proper notice of the danger e.g., ‘wet paint’. Any warning needs to be appropriate to the premises (see reference to notices and small children on previous slide).
