Occupiers’ liability
Loss caused by state or condition of premises, things done or things
omitted to be done during the occupation of premises
Pre-1957, common law:
o Contractual invitee owed highest standard of care
o Mere invitee next highest
o Trespassers lowest – no duty unless occupier intended to cause
loss or was reckless as to their safety knowing of their
presence
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 – covers duty owed by occupiers to visitors
Approach altered by HoL in British Railway Board v Herrington – duty of
‘common humanity’
This is basis of Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (OLA 1984) covering non-
visitors
Acts + common law exist alongside one another
Terminology
Occupier
‘Occupier’ includes all persons who would be treated as occupier at
common law (s 1(2) OLA 1957)
Occupier has sufficient degree of control over the premises that he
ought to realise that any failure to use care may result in injury to a
person coming lawfully there (Wheat v Lacon)
Occupier = actual possession, for it is he who has the power of
permitting or prohibiting the entry of other persons (Salmond on the Law
of Torts)
o Employed in Bailey v Armes – child climbs on to roof above
supermarket and falls ~ neither supermarket nor flat owner had
sufficient control over roof
Lord Denning, ‘occupier’ (Wheat v Lacon):
1. If landlord does not live on the property, tenant is occupier
2. If landlord retains some part of premises (e.g. common areas like
stairways), they are the occupier of those parts
3. If landlord issues a licence they remain an occupier (as in Wheat)
4. If the occupier employs an independent contractor they generally
remain responsible
1
, Multiple occupiers
Exclusive occupation not necessary ~ no need for entire control over
premises (Wheat v Lacon)
Collier v Anglian Water Authority, The Times – C injured walking along
seaside promenade; claim against water board and local authority; both
occupiers, but poor state of promenade that caused loss due to water
authority = liable
C = visitor to one occupier, trespasser to another (Ferguson v Welsh) –
demolition work; contract with Mr Spence prohibiting subcontracting;
sub-contractor gave job to Ferguson, who is injured; he is trespasser to
council, but visitor to Spence ~ no claim vs council
Independent contractors (Wheat v Lacon) – owner usually regarded as
sufficiently in control of premises to owe visitors a DoC
In addition, contractor may be in sufficient control of where he is
working to owe a DoC to visitors (AMF International Ltd v Magnet Bowling
Ltd)
o Here, contractor occupier of whole building, even though part of
building separated by screen beyond which contractor went
only to attend to heating and lighting
Absent owners
Absentees who have not taken any actual or symbolic steps to take
possession may be the occupier (Harris v Birkenhead Corporation)
o Local authority held to be occupiers even though they had never
exercised control over the property
o Importantly, they had the ability to secure the safety of the
premises and failed to do so
Premises
S 1(3)(a) OLA 1957 – non-conclusive, wide definition including land +
buildings + ‘any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle
or aircraft’
Ladder included in premises (Wheeler v Copas)
2
Loss caused by state or condition of premises, things done or things
omitted to be done during the occupation of premises
Pre-1957, common law:
o Contractual invitee owed highest standard of care
o Mere invitee next highest
o Trespassers lowest – no duty unless occupier intended to cause
loss or was reckless as to their safety knowing of their
presence
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 – covers duty owed by occupiers to visitors
Approach altered by HoL in British Railway Board v Herrington – duty of
‘common humanity’
This is basis of Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (OLA 1984) covering non-
visitors
Acts + common law exist alongside one another
Terminology
Occupier
‘Occupier’ includes all persons who would be treated as occupier at
common law (s 1(2) OLA 1957)
Occupier has sufficient degree of control over the premises that he
ought to realise that any failure to use care may result in injury to a
person coming lawfully there (Wheat v Lacon)
Occupier = actual possession, for it is he who has the power of
permitting or prohibiting the entry of other persons (Salmond on the Law
of Torts)
o Employed in Bailey v Armes – child climbs on to roof above
supermarket and falls ~ neither supermarket nor flat owner had
sufficient control over roof
Lord Denning, ‘occupier’ (Wheat v Lacon):
1. If landlord does not live on the property, tenant is occupier
2. If landlord retains some part of premises (e.g. common areas like
stairways), they are the occupier of those parts
3. If landlord issues a licence they remain an occupier (as in Wheat)
4. If the occupier employs an independent contractor they generally
remain responsible
1
, Multiple occupiers
Exclusive occupation not necessary ~ no need for entire control over
premises (Wheat v Lacon)
Collier v Anglian Water Authority, The Times – C injured walking along
seaside promenade; claim against water board and local authority; both
occupiers, but poor state of promenade that caused loss due to water
authority = liable
C = visitor to one occupier, trespasser to another (Ferguson v Welsh) –
demolition work; contract with Mr Spence prohibiting subcontracting;
sub-contractor gave job to Ferguson, who is injured; he is trespasser to
council, but visitor to Spence ~ no claim vs council
Independent contractors (Wheat v Lacon) – owner usually regarded as
sufficiently in control of premises to owe visitors a DoC
In addition, contractor may be in sufficient control of where he is
working to owe a DoC to visitors (AMF International Ltd v Magnet Bowling
Ltd)
o Here, contractor occupier of whole building, even though part of
building separated by screen beyond which contractor went
only to attend to heating and lighting
Absent owners
Absentees who have not taken any actual or symbolic steps to take
possession may be the occupier (Harris v Birkenhead Corporation)
o Local authority held to be occupiers even though they had never
exercised control over the property
o Importantly, they had the ability to secure the safety of the
premises and failed to do so
Premises
S 1(3)(a) OLA 1957 – non-conclusive, wide definition including land +
buildings + ‘any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle
or aircraft’
Ladder included in premises (Wheeler v Copas)
2
