Evaluation: Occupier’s Liability • Occupier’s Liability Act 1984
• Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 • Pre 84 Act:
• Pre-section 2(1): • Pre-84 Act, trespassers were treated harshly
• Pre-Act- different duties were owed to different types of lawful visitor.
• Pre-Act there was a complicated set of common law rules which caused • Trespassers should be not on other people’s property
confusion and injustice. • However it could be argued that, this should not be an
• The 1957 Act is a statutory form of negligence which now creates a absolute duty, as we should have some responsibility for
common duty of care to all lawful visitors. certain injuries to trespassers, a moral duty to take care of
• Explanation of premises: others?
• The Act only covers the state of a premises • The duty itself to trespassers:
• The Act limits the liability here, so alternative actions in different torts
are necessary. • The duty is unfair to the occupier
• Alternative actions to those under the Act are possible e.g. under • Trespassers enter at their own risk
negligence. • However it could be argued that, occupiers must take some
• Section 2(2): responsibility for injuries that occur on their premises – a
• An occupier may ‘extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty.’ trespasser is simply a label and nothing else.
• The Act relies on lawful visitors being prudent to look after themselves
at all times, including minors (albeit a higher standard of care is owed by • Types of premises:
the occupier fro children) • The growth of more dangerous premises requires more
• An occupier can therefore determine the extent of their duty. protection
• Exclusion clauses/limitation notices: • An occupier should not allow dangerous premises to exist or
• An occupier can still have numerous means of reducing, removing or operate
avoiding liability.
• The Act relies on lawful visitors being prudent to look after themselves
• However it could be argued that, trespassers should not be on
at all times, including minors (albeit a higher standard of care is owed by other people’s property
the occupier for children) • Children as trespassers:
• An occupier can therefore determine the extent of their duty via
exclusion clauses. • There are difficulties of children appreciating danger as a
• Exceeding permission to be on the premises: trespasser.
• Once a lawful visitor exceeds their scope to be on the premises, they • A higher duty must be owed to children who cannot
become a trespasser. appreciate risk in the same way as an adult.
• Acting beyond the scope must be deemed wrong and therefore not • However it could be argued that, children should be under the
prudent and expose the person to the subsequent consequences. care and supervision of a parent/guardian. They should
• It is unclear as to at what exact point a person acts beyond the scope of understand that trespassing is wrong and can be dangerous.
their lawful permission. The consequences, if so, are potentially
catastrophic. • Compensation:
• Children as lawful visitors: • Compensation is only available for injury
• A higher standard of care is placed on an occupier to ensure the safety • Trespassers are deserving of less protection than are lawful
of children than adults. visitors.
• Children are less likely to see the risk or danger, or the impact of acting
outside the scope of their permission to be on the premises. • However it could be argued that, occupiers must take
• To what lengths must an occupier go to avoid injury? If present, parents responsibility for injuries that occur on their premises – a
should be looking after children, not occupier, but see Phipps v trespasser is simply a label and nothing else.
Rochester Corporations (1955)
• Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 • Pre 84 Act:
• Pre-section 2(1): • Pre-84 Act, trespassers were treated harshly
• Pre-Act- different duties were owed to different types of lawful visitor.
• Pre-Act there was a complicated set of common law rules which caused • Trespassers should be not on other people’s property
confusion and injustice. • However it could be argued that, this should not be an
• The 1957 Act is a statutory form of negligence which now creates a absolute duty, as we should have some responsibility for
common duty of care to all lawful visitors. certain injuries to trespassers, a moral duty to take care of
• Explanation of premises: others?
• The Act only covers the state of a premises • The duty itself to trespassers:
• The Act limits the liability here, so alternative actions in different torts
are necessary. • The duty is unfair to the occupier
• Alternative actions to those under the Act are possible e.g. under • Trespassers enter at their own risk
negligence. • However it could be argued that, occupiers must take some
• Section 2(2): responsibility for injuries that occur on their premises – a
• An occupier may ‘extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty.’ trespasser is simply a label and nothing else.
• The Act relies on lawful visitors being prudent to look after themselves
at all times, including minors (albeit a higher standard of care is owed by • Types of premises:
the occupier fro children) • The growth of more dangerous premises requires more
• An occupier can therefore determine the extent of their duty. protection
• Exclusion clauses/limitation notices: • An occupier should not allow dangerous premises to exist or
• An occupier can still have numerous means of reducing, removing or operate
avoiding liability.
• The Act relies on lawful visitors being prudent to look after themselves
• However it could be argued that, trespassers should not be on
at all times, including minors (albeit a higher standard of care is owed by other people’s property
the occupier for children) • Children as trespassers:
• An occupier can therefore determine the extent of their duty via
exclusion clauses. • There are difficulties of children appreciating danger as a
• Exceeding permission to be on the premises: trespasser.
• Once a lawful visitor exceeds their scope to be on the premises, they • A higher duty must be owed to children who cannot
become a trespasser. appreciate risk in the same way as an adult.
• Acting beyond the scope must be deemed wrong and therefore not • However it could be argued that, children should be under the
prudent and expose the person to the subsequent consequences. care and supervision of a parent/guardian. They should
• It is unclear as to at what exact point a person acts beyond the scope of understand that trespassing is wrong and can be dangerous.
their lawful permission. The consequences, if so, are potentially
catastrophic. • Compensation:
• Children as lawful visitors: • Compensation is only available for injury
• A higher standard of care is placed on an occupier to ensure the safety • Trespassers are deserving of less protection than are lawful
of children than adults. visitors.
• Children are less likely to see the risk or danger, or the impact of acting
outside the scope of their permission to be on the premises. • However it could be argued that, occupiers must take
• To what lengths must an occupier go to avoid injury? If present, parents responsibility for injuries that occur on their premises – a
should be looking after children, not occupier, but see Phipps v trespasser is simply a label and nothing else.
Rochester Corporations (1955)
