occupiers' liability 1957

Question 1

what are the two acts for occupiers’ liability?

Answer 1

The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 - covers lawful visitors
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 - covers unlawful visitors

Question 2

section 1(1) ola 57

Answer 2

provides that an occupier owes a duty of care to lawful visitors with regards to their premises

Question 3

section 2(1) ola 57

can sue for..

Answer 3

lawful visitors can sue for personal injury and/or property damage suffered on the premises

Question 4

who is an occupier?

Answer 4

• there is no statutory definition of ‘occupier’
• test for deciding whether someone is the occupier is in case/common law
• the test is one of control

Question 5

Wheat v E.Lacon & Co Ltd (1966)

Answer 5

• manager of pub was given the right to rent out rooms in his private quarters even though he had no ownership rights in the premises
• visitor fell on an unlit staircase and died.
• HoL decided both the manager and his employers could be occupiers under the Act so there could be more than one occupier of the premises

Question 6

Harris v Birkenhead Corp (1976)

Answer 6

• 4 year old child injured in an empty house
• local council had served a compulsory purchase order on the house but they had not boarded it up or made it secure as they had not yet taken possession.
• held council was the occupier as they were effectively in control of the premises

Question 7

Bailey v Armes (1999)

Answer 7

• D’s lived in a flat above a supermarket - allowed their son to play on the flat roof above their flat
• supermarket knew nothing of the use of the roof.
• boy’s friend went on roof and was injured when he fell
• CoA held that neither the supermarket nor the defendants were occupiers as they did not have sufficient control over the roof

Question 8

what does ‘premises’ mean and where is it defined?

Answer 8

there is no full statutory definition of premises except in section 1(3)(a) of the 1957 Act
* it is any ‘fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft’

Question 9

examples of premises + cases

Answer 9

• Ships in dry dock – London Graving Dock v Horton
• Vehicles – Hartwell v Grayson (1947)
• Lifts – Haseldine v Daw & Son (1941)
• A ladder – Wheeler v Copas (1981)

Question 10

who is a ‘lawful visitor’

Answer 10

this is someone who has permission to enter, and this can either be expressed or implied.
* Invitees – persons with express permission to be there
* Licensees – persons who may have express/implied permission to be on the land for a particular period
* Those with contractual permission – e.g. bought an entry ticket for an event
* Those given a statutory right of entry – e.g. persons such as meter readers or a police constable exercisinga warrant
* entry to communicate

Question 11

entry to communicate

Question 12

s.2(1) states…

Answer 12

‘an occupier of premises owes a duty of care to all his lawful visitors’.

Question 13

s.2(2) ola 1957

Answer 13

‘a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances… is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there’.

can be seen in Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme

Question 14

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme

Answer 14

D’s owned a small takeaway shop. They had fitted slip resistant tiles and they used a mop and bucket to mop the floor if it had been raining

C went into the shop and it was very busy and had been raining. She slipped and broke her ankle

CoA held the shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure their customers were safe. They don’t have to make the shop completely safe – just do what is reasonable

Question 15

Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell

Question 16

Cole v Davis-Gilbert, The Royal British Legion and others

Question 17

S.2(3) ola 1957

Answer 17

occupier ‘must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults [and as a result] the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age’

For children, the standard of care is measured subjectively according to the age of the child

Question 18

Allurement or attraction

Answer 18

The occupier should guard against any kind of ‘allurement or attraction’ which could place a child visitor at risk of harm

Glasgow Corp v Taylor (1922)

Question 19

Glasgow Corp v Taylor

Answer 19

7 year old child ate poisonous berries from a shrub in a public park and died

Shrub on which the berried grew was not fenced off in any way. Council were liable to the child’s parents

They were aware of the danger and the berries amounted to an allurement to young children

Question 20

ola 1957 - very young children

Answer 20

Where very young children are injured, the courts are reluctant to find the occupier liable as the child should be under supervision of a parent/other adult

Phipps v Rochester Corp (1955)

Question 21

Phipps v Rochester Corp

Answer 21

5 year old child playing on open ground owned by the council with his 7 year old sister

He fell down a trench and was injured

Court decided that the council was not liable as the occupier is entitled to expect that parents should not allow their young children to go to places which are potentially unsafe

Question 22

Where an allurement exists, there will be no liability on the occupier if …

Answer 22

Where an allurement exists, there will be no liability on the occupier if the damage or injury is not foreseeable

Jolley v London Borough of Sutton

Question 23

Jolley v London Borough of Sutton

Answer 23

Council had failed to move an abandoned boat which was on its land for 2 years. Children regularly played in the boat and there was a clear potential for danger. 2 boys were playing (aged 14) and jacked up the boat but it fell on one, seriously injuring him

Claim for compensation succeeded in the High Court

CoA disagreed – while the boat was an obvious allurement, the course of action taken by the boys and therefore the specific type of injury was not foreseeable