Occupiers' liability (1957 & 1984 Acts)

TOR.06 — Occupiers' Liability (1957 & 1984 Acts)

Two statutes govern liability of an occupier for the state of premises (and things done/omitted there). Identify the visitor's status first — it decides which Act applies.

Who is an occupier? Whoever has sufficient control over the premises (Wheat v E Lacon & Co). More than one occupier is possible. "Premises" includes land, buildings, and fixed/movable structures (s.1(3)(a) 1957 Act — covers ladders, scaffolding, vessels).

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 — lawful visitors

• Applies to visitors = those with express/implied permission, or a legal right of entry (e.g. police with warrant, meter readers).
• Common duty of care (s.2(2)): take such care as is reasonable to see the visitor is reasonably safe for the purposes for which permitted to be there — not to keep the premises safe in the abstract.
• Children (s.2(3)(a)): expect less care for their own safety; guard against allurements (Glasgow Corp v Taylor — poisonous berries). But very young children: occupier may assume accompaniment by a parent (Phipps v Rochester Corp).
• Skilled visitors (s.2(3)(b)): a tradesman is expected to guard against risks ordinarily incident to his calling (Roles v Nathan — chimney sweeps killed by fumes).
• Independent contractors (s.2(4)(b)): occupier NOT liable for a contractor's negligent work if reasonable to entrust it, took care to select a competent contractor, and (where possible) checked the work was done properly (Haseldine v Daw — technical lift work, no duty to inspect).
• Warnings (s.2(4)(a)): a warning discharges the duty only if enough to keep the visitor reasonably safe.

Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 — trespassers (and non-visitors)

Duty arises only if all three s.1(3) conditions met: occupier (a) knows of / has reasonable grounds to believe the danger exists; (b) knows/has reasonable grounds to believe someone is/may come into the vicinity; (c) the risk is one against which it is reasonable to offer some protection. Duty (s.1(4)): take such care as is reasonable to prevent injury from the danger.

Key traps

• 1984 Act covers personal injury ONLY — no recovery for property damage (contrast 1957 Act, which covers property under s.1(3)(b)).
• Obvious dangers / free choice: no duty re obvious risks; people accept ordinary risks of dangerous activities (Tomlinson v Congleton BC — diving into shallow lake; Edwards v Sutton LBC).
• Exclusion: 1957 duty can be excluded by notice (s.2(1)) subject to UCTA 1977 / CRA 2015 (business cannot exclude liability for death/PI from negligence). Whether the 1984 duty can be excluded is unsettled — likely an irreducible minimum.
• Consent (s.2(5) 1957 / s.1(6) 1984): volenti available for risks willingly accepted.
• Don't confuse occupier's liability (state of premises) with general negligence for current activities on land — the activity duty sits in common-law negligence, not the Acts.