Occupiers’ Liability
Introduction
• The law has recognised that people who had occupy land have a duty to look after the safety
of others who come onto the land.
• Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 set out duty owed by occupiers towards people who come
onto their land with permission.
• Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 set out duty owed by occupiers towards those who enter their
land without permission, known as trespassers.
• S.1(3) of OLA 1957 defines premises as “fixed or movable structures, including any vessel,
vehicle or aircraft.”
Who is an occupier?
• Under the common law, occupier is the person who controls the premises.
• They have to exercise a sufficient degree of control to allow or prevent other people
entering.
• Harris v Birkenhead Corporation
o The council failed to board up the house & the claimant, a 4-year-old child got into
the house through an unsecured window & ended up falling.
o The COA held that the fact that the local authority had legal right to control the
premises made them the occupiers, & excluded the previous owner from any
liability.
Liability to visitors: Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
• S.2(1) of of the 1957 Act provides that an occupier of premises owes a common duty of care
to visitors of those premises.
Who is a visitor?
• A visitor is someone who has express or implied permission from the occupier to enter the
premises.
• Anyone who enters the property without such permission is a trespasser, whose rights are
governed not by the Act of 1957 but by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.
• Where permission to enter has been given but is withdrawn while the entrant is still on the
property, they are allowed reasonable time to leave; once that expires, that person
becomes a trespasser.
Adults
• S.2(2) provides that occupiers have a duty towards visitors to take such care as is reasonable
in all circumstances of the case to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe on using the
premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted to be there.
• Ward v The Ritz Hotel
o The claimant was injured when he fell over a balcony in the defendants’ hotel.
o The balcony’s rail was 6 inches lower than the safety standards.
o These standards are not legally binding but the COA held that they showed there
was a need for strict safety standards in this kind of area, & they had not taken the
reasonable care required by the Act.
o The hotel was found liable.
Notes prepared by Sonia Lee
, • Horton v Jackson
o The claimant was a golfer who was blinded after being hit by a ball.
o He claimed that the club was in breach of its duty under the Act, as they should have
put a screen up to protect people on the golf club.
o But the fact that in 800,000 rounds of golf played, only 2 accidents had occurred.
o Therefore, putting a screen up is an unreasonable expectation.
• Clare v Perry
o Ms Clare tried to leave the hotel with her partner by climbing a wall that was next to
the road.
o She fell & was seriously injured.
o The court held that there was no obligation on the defendant to put up a fence
because it was not foreseeable that a visitor would deliberately climb & jump off
the wall.
• Rochester Cathedral v Debell
o The claimant fell over a protruding lump of concrete under a traffic bollard.
o The Court of Appeal held that the protrusion was small & posed no real danger to
pedestrians, & so was not reasonable to expect the defendants to do anything about
it
Children
• S.2(3)(a) states an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. If
occupier allows a child to enter the premises then the premises must be reasonably safe for
a child of that age.
• Petty v Butlins Holiday World
o A 3-year-old boy cut his ear when he fell onto a brick wall at the defendants’ camp.
o The low wall was built with sharp bricks & was near an open area where children
regularly played.
o The court held that the design of the wall & its position meant that the defendants
had breached their duty under the Act.
• Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
o A 7-year old child had died from eating poisonous berries that he had picked from a
bush in a park, which was under the control of the corporation.
o The corporation knew the berries were poisonous, but had neither fenced nor put
up any warning notice.
o They were held liable; the children were entitled to go onto the land & the berries
would have been alluring to children.
o Simply by leaving berries means the corporation had breached their duty of care to a
child, though this would not have been the case if the victim is an adult.
• Phipps v Rochester Corporation
o The claimant was a boy aged 5, who was picking black berries with is sister aged 7.
o He was injured when he fell into a trench dug by the defendants.
o The Corporation were not held liable as an occupier is entitled to assume that no
sensible parents would allow their children to go unaccompanied to places where
it is unsafe.
• Jolley v London Brough of Sutton
Notes prepared by Sonia Lee
Introduction
• The law has recognised that people who had occupy land have a duty to look after the safety
of others who come onto the land.
• Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 set out duty owed by occupiers towards people who come
onto their land with permission.
• Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 set out duty owed by occupiers towards those who enter their
land without permission, known as trespassers.
• S.1(3) of OLA 1957 defines premises as “fixed or movable structures, including any vessel,
vehicle or aircraft.”
Who is an occupier?
• Under the common law, occupier is the person who controls the premises.
• They have to exercise a sufficient degree of control to allow or prevent other people
entering.
• Harris v Birkenhead Corporation
o The council failed to board up the house & the claimant, a 4-year-old child got into
the house through an unsecured window & ended up falling.
o The COA held that the fact that the local authority had legal right to control the
premises made them the occupiers, & excluded the previous owner from any
liability.
Liability to visitors: Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
• S.2(1) of of the 1957 Act provides that an occupier of premises owes a common duty of care
to visitors of those premises.
Who is a visitor?
• A visitor is someone who has express or implied permission from the occupier to enter the
premises.
• Anyone who enters the property without such permission is a trespasser, whose rights are
governed not by the Act of 1957 but by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.
• Where permission to enter has been given but is withdrawn while the entrant is still on the
property, they are allowed reasonable time to leave; once that expires, that person
becomes a trespasser.
Adults
• S.2(2) provides that occupiers have a duty towards visitors to take such care as is reasonable
in all circumstances of the case to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe on using the
premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted to be there.
• Ward v The Ritz Hotel
o The claimant was injured when he fell over a balcony in the defendants’ hotel.
o The balcony’s rail was 6 inches lower than the safety standards.
o These standards are not legally binding but the COA held that they showed there
was a need for strict safety standards in this kind of area, & they had not taken the
reasonable care required by the Act.
o The hotel was found liable.
Notes prepared by Sonia Lee
, • Horton v Jackson
o The claimant was a golfer who was blinded after being hit by a ball.
o He claimed that the club was in breach of its duty under the Act, as they should have
put a screen up to protect people on the golf club.
o But the fact that in 800,000 rounds of golf played, only 2 accidents had occurred.
o Therefore, putting a screen up is an unreasonable expectation.
• Clare v Perry
o Ms Clare tried to leave the hotel with her partner by climbing a wall that was next to
the road.
o She fell & was seriously injured.
o The court held that there was no obligation on the defendant to put up a fence
because it was not foreseeable that a visitor would deliberately climb & jump off
the wall.
• Rochester Cathedral v Debell
o The claimant fell over a protruding lump of concrete under a traffic bollard.
o The Court of Appeal held that the protrusion was small & posed no real danger to
pedestrians, & so was not reasonable to expect the defendants to do anything about
it
Children
• S.2(3)(a) states an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. If
occupier allows a child to enter the premises then the premises must be reasonably safe for
a child of that age.
• Petty v Butlins Holiday World
o A 3-year-old boy cut his ear when he fell onto a brick wall at the defendants’ camp.
o The low wall was built with sharp bricks & was near an open area where children
regularly played.
o The court held that the design of the wall & its position meant that the defendants
had breached their duty under the Act.
• Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
o A 7-year old child had died from eating poisonous berries that he had picked from a
bush in a park, which was under the control of the corporation.
o The corporation knew the berries were poisonous, but had neither fenced nor put
up any warning notice.
o They were held liable; the children were entitled to go onto the land & the berries
would have been alluring to children.
o Simply by leaving berries means the corporation had breached their duty of care to a
child, though this would not have been the case if the victim is an adult.
• Phipps v Rochester Corporation
o The claimant was a boy aged 5, who was picking black berries with is sister aged 7.
o He was injured when he fell into a trench dug by the defendants.
o The Corporation were not held liable as an occupier is entitled to assume that no
sensible parents would allow their children to go unaccompanied to places where
it is unsafe.
• Jolley v London Brough of Sutton
Notes prepared by Sonia Lee
