Occupiers’ Liability: Lawful Visitors

Question 1

What does the claimant have?

Answer 1

The burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.

Question 2

What is the defendant?

Answer 2

The occupier.

Question 3

What is an occupier?

Answer 3

Someone who has control and possession of the premises.

Question 4

What happened in Wheat (1966) and what was decided?

Answer 4

• A paying guest fell on an unlit staircase and died.
• House of Lords decided that both the manager and his employees could be occupiers under the act.
• Thus there could be more than one occupier of the premises.

Question 5

What is the definition of ‘premises’

Answer 5

• S 1(3)(a) of the 1957 act defines it as any “fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft”.

Question 6

How are lawful visitors dealt with?

Answer 6

Under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957.

Question 7

What is a lawful visitor?

Answer 7

Invitees, licensees, those with contractual permission and those with a statutory right of entry.

Question 8

What does section 2(2) state regarding adult visitors?

Answer 8

They must be “reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose that they’ve been invited”.

Question 9

What is the occupier’s responsibility regarding taking care and safety?

Answer 9

Only has to take reasonable care and doesn’t have to make the premises completely safe.

Question 10

What happened in Laverton (2002) and what was decided?

Answer 10

• Claimant slipped and broke her ankle.
• The Court of Appeal decided the shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure their customers were safe.
• Not liable as they did not have to make the shop completely safe.

Question 11

What is owed to children?

Answer 11

An additional duty of care.

Question 12

What does section 2(3) state regarding children?

Answer 12

You must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.

Question 13

What happened in Taylor (1922) and what was decided?

Answer 13

• A child ate poisonous berries from a shrub in a public park and died.
• The council were liable to the child’s parents.
• The council was aware of the danger and the berries amounted to an allurement to young children.

Question 14

What happened in Phipps (1955) and what was decided?

Answer 14

• A child fell down a trench and was injured.
• The court decided that the council was not liable as the occupier is entitled to expect that parents should not allow their children to go to places which are potentially unsafe.

Question 15

What does an occupier owe to workers?

Answer 15

A duty of care.

Question 16

What does section 2(3)(b) state regarding workers?

Answer 16

A worker must guard against any special risks.

Question 17

What happened in Roles (1963) and what was decided?

Answer 17

• Two chimney sweeps died after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes whilst cleaning.
• The occupiers were not liable as they could have expected chimney sweeps to be aware of the particular danger.

Question 18

What does section 2(4) state regarding visitors injured by independent contractors?

Answer 18

The occupier is liable if it was reasonable to give work to the contractor, they were competent to carry out the task and the occupier checked that the work was done properly.

Question 19

What happened in Haseldine (1941) and what was decided?

Answer 19

• The claimant was killed when a lift plunged to the bottom of a shaft.
• The occupier was not liable as this work is a highly specialist activity and was reasonable to give the work to a specialist firm.

Question 20

What happened in Bottomley (2003) and what was decided?

Answer 20

• The claimant was burnt and broke an arm when a firework stunt went wrong.
• The stunt team had no insurance.
• The Court of Appeal decided the club was liable as it had failed to exercise reasonable care to choose safe and competent contractors.

Question 21

What happened in Woodward (1945) and what was decided?

Answer 21

• A child was injured on school steps that were left icy after snow had been cleared off them.
• The occupiers were liable as they had failed to take reasonable steps to check that the work had been done properly.