Occupiers Liability Flashcards
What is the difference between the Occupier’s liability Act 1957 and 1984
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, he is entitled to receive compensation.
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 sets out a similar rule but for unlawful visitors i.e. trespassers
Who is an occupier ?
An occupier is the occupier of premises who may be, but does not have to be, the owner or tenant of the premises
An occupier is one who has some degree of control over the premises
What case indicates that there can be more than one occupier ?
Case of Wheat v E. Lacon & Co
HOL decides both manager and his employers could be occupiers under 1957 act as both had degree of control over premises.
What other case illustrates how this ‘control test’ works ?
Harris V Birkenhead Corporation
It was decided that they were occupiers as they were in control of the premises
A decision of who is in control of premises may be influenced by whose insurance policy covers the premises and is able to meet the claim, support with a case
Bailey v Armes
The COA decided that neither the supermarket nor the defendants were occupiers as they did not have sufficient control over the roof
Define premises:
There is no full statutory definition of premises but s1(3) states that term includes not only land and buildings but also ‘any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft’
Premises can also be:
- A ship in a dry dock
- a vehicle
- a lift
- a ladder
Who are lawful visitors ?
They are visitors who have permission to enter the premises, this could be adults, children or people carrying out trade.
Permission can either be expressed/implied
Explain expressed permission :
A person has express permission if they gained permission to be there e.g. by being asked
-permission can be withdrawn but the person must be given a reasonable amount of time to leave before they are considered a trespasser
Explain implied permission:
Courts might decide someone has implied permission, permission can be implied for example someone entering a shop to buy or browse items.
Courts can also imply permission in certain circumstances depending on facts (Lowery V Walker)
What was held in Lowery V Walker ?
Held that farmer hadn’t ask people not to use field as short-cut so claimant had implied permission, thus to be classed as a visitor rather than trespasser.
What are extra things you need to know about implied permission ?
If someone claims they had implied permission, burden is on them to prove that was the case
Permission must be genuine. It is not enough that the occupier merely tolerates the person being there.
If someone enters occupier’s premises in order to communicate , they will be taken to have implied permission unless it is a clear that they are forbidden to enter
