Introduction:
What is an occupier?
(Same legal points as Occupiers Liability 1957)
- An Occupier is the person with control over the premises at the time of the incident, can be
more than one person with control: Wheat v Lacon
- Look at who is effectively in control of the premises at the time of the incident Harris v
Birkenhead Corporations-> may be no-one in effective control: Bailey v Armes
What are the premises?
s.1(3)(a): any fixed or movable structure (wide definition)
Addie v Dumbreck: originally no liability to trespassers
BRB v Herrington: the courts introduced a common duty of humanity to trespassers
Duty of Care:
s.1(1)(a): duty covers injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the
premises or things done/omitted to be done on them COVERS PERSONAL INJURY ONLY
Common duty of care
s.1(4): To take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the
trespasser is not injured by the danger
only owe duty to trespassers if:
s.1(3):
(a): O is aware of the danger/ has reasonable grounds to believe danger exists
> - Rhind v Astbury Water Park: O does not owe duty for danger where they are
unaware
(b): O knows/ has reasonable grounds to believe trespasser is in vicinity of danger
> Higgs v Foster: O doesn't owe duty where O doesn't expect T to enter premises
> Donoghue v Folkestone Properties: O doesn't have to warn T of obvious risks if T
enters at unforeseeable time of day or year
(c): The risk is one against which, in all circumstances O may be expected to offer
some protection
> Ratcliff v McConnell:O does not have to warn trespassers of risk of injury against
obvious dangers
> Tomlinson v Congleton BC: doesn't have to spend money making premises safe
Defences
Warning notices
- (s.1(5) - Any duty owed in respect of a risk may be discharged by taking reasonable steps
to give warning of the danger. (potential defence)
- Rae v Mars: where danger is extreme or unusual, it not enough for there to be a warning; a
barrier or additional notice should be placed
- Westwood v Post Office - O was not liable as the notice was held to be a sufficiently clear
warning for an adult.
Consent
What is an occupier?
(Same legal points as Occupiers Liability 1957)
- An Occupier is the person with control over the premises at the time of the incident, can be
more than one person with control: Wheat v Lacon
- Look at who is effectively in control of the premises at the time of the incident Harris v
Birkenhead Corporations-> may be no-one in effective control: Bailey v Armes
What are the premises?
s.1(3)(a): any fixed or movable structure (wide definition)
Addie v Dumbreck: originally no liability to trespassers
BRB v Herrington: the courts introduced a common duty of humanity to trespassers
Duty of Care:
s.1(1)(a): duty covers injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the
premises or things done/omitted to be done on them COVERS PERSONAL INJURY ONLY
Common duty of care
s.1(4): To take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the
trespasser is not injured by the danger
only owe duty to trespassers if:
s.1(3):
(a): O is aware of the danger/ has reasonable grounds to believe danger exists
> - Rhind v Astbury Water Park: O does not owe duty for danger where they are
unaware
(b): O knows/ has reasonable grounds to believe trespasser is in vicinity of danger
> Higgs v Foster: O doesn't owe duty where O doesn't expect T to enter premises
> Donoghue v Folkestone Properties: O doesn't have to warn T of obvious risks if T
enters at unforeseeable time of day or year
(c): The risk is one against which, in all circumstances O may be expected to offer
some protection
> Ratcliff v McConnell:O does not have to warn trespassers of risk of injury against
obvious dangers
> Tomlinson v Congleton BC: doesn't have to spend money making premises safe
Defences
Warning notices
- (s.1(5) - Any duty owed in respect of a risk may be discharged by taking reasonable steps
to give warning of the danger. (potential defence)
- Rae v Mars: where danger is extreme or unusual, it not enough for there to be a warning; a
barrier or additional notice should be placed
- Westwood v Post Office - O was not liable as the notice was held to be a sufficiently clear
warning for an adult.
Consent
