Unit 6 – D2
In this assignment I have been asked by Ramondo Chesners to write a report on Occupiers’ Liability
and Rylands v Fletcher to contribute towards his Private Members’ Bill suggestng change.
Firstly, I would like to discuss about the 1957 Act where liability is only held for the state of the
premises. This makes the claims more limited but there is an alternatve acton in negligence which is
seen in the case of Ogwo v Taylor and Salmon v Seafarers Restaurant which seems fair to the partes.
This is fair as there is no obligaton to change the premises and to protect them, regarding the case
of Tomlinson which was not of the public’s interest.
The word ‘premises’ is broadly defned in both secton 1 (3) and in Common Law as in the case of
Wheeler v Copas which increases the possibility of claiming successfully. Finally, the word ‘visitor’ is
defned as it’s very easy for them to become trespasses by exceeding the terms of their license.
Under secton 2(3)(a) of the Act, it provides a special duty which is owed to children who are kept
under extra protecton to the most vulnerable. However, without the principle in Phipps this makes
parents responsible for young children which can prove to be unfair to the occupier. There is
inconsistency in this as it gives the judges fexibility to decide on what the outcome should be. This
means that the individuals characteristcs of the child should be taken such as any disabilites or
learning difficultes.
This makes it unclear when a parent loses liability for their children’s actons as the case law is
inconsistent. In the case of Phipps, it was a harsh decision as children of the age fve and seven have
a level of independence, but the parents were stll held liable. The allurements that the law requires
of an occupier is expected to guard against any allurement. This isn’t clearly defned which leads to
unfairness as there is no defniton of what age the allurement defence extends to.
The rules of carrying out a trade under secton 2(3)(b) relieves the liability of the occupier where
they are expected to guard against risks associated with their employment. There are special rules
which are based on independent contractors which is held under secton 2(()(b). This makes it fair
for the occupier and the claimant can stll take acton against the contractor in negligence. However,
it is highly unlikely that someone would check the insurance details of an independent contractor.
However, in the case of Haseldine, the decision was fair as occupiers shouldn’t check complex work
or check to see if it has been completed.
The occupier’s duty of care owed can be altered, extended restricted and excluded to avoid owing a
duty of care to visitors. This means that it is available to the occupier for avoiding liability at a more
extensive rate under common law. It could be questoned if the liability could be avoided so easily
where there are principles which are fair to both partes. The warnings must be reasonable and
wouldn’t apply to children. There were exclusions where there have been exemptons which means
they have a limited use where they protect claimants to ensure they receive compensaton.
The Occupiers Liability Act 198( was passed to create a common duty of care to all lawful visitors as
there are diferent dutes which are owed to diferent types of lawful visitors. This has the efect of
being more fair and consistent to diferent lawful visitors and occupiers. The Act ofers less
protecton than the 1957 Act, as it refects the status of the trespasser as it is harder to succeed in a
claim as more must established of secton 1 (3). This means that only compensaton for person injury
is awarded where there are fair and balances which interests of both partes.
There are no exclusions which are mentoned as it isn’t clear whether this was an oversight by
Parliament. This gives trespassers more protecton than lawful visitors as liability cannot be
In this assignment I have been asked by Ramondo Chesners to write a report on Occupiers’ Liability
and Rylands v Fletcher to contribute towards his Private Members’ Bill suggestng change.
Firstly, I would like to discuss about the 1957 Act where liability is only held for the state of the
premises. This makes the claims more limited but there is an alternatve acton in negligence which is
seen in the case of Ogwo v Taylor and Salmon v Seafarers Restaurant which seems fair to the partes.
This is fair as there is no obligaton to change the premises and to protect them, regarding the case
of Tomlinson which was not of the public’s interest.
The word ‘premises’ is broadly defned in both secton 1 (3) and in Common Law as in the case of
Wheeler v Copas which increases the possibility of claiming successfully. Finally, the word ‘visitor’ is
defned as it’s very easy for them to become trespasses by exceeding the terms of their license.
Under secton 2(3)(a) of the Act, it provides a special duty which is owed to children who are kept
under extra protecton to the most vulnerable. However, without the principle in Phipps this makes
parents responsible for young children which can prove to be unfair to the occupier. There is
inconsistency in this as it gives the judges fexibility to decide on what the outcome should be. This
means that the individuals characteristcs of the child should be taken such as any disabilites or
learning difficultes.
This makes it unclear when a parent loses liability for their children’s actons as the case law is
inconsistent. In the case of Phipps, it was a harsh decision as children of the age fve and seven have
a level of independence, but the parents were stll held liable. The allurements that the law requires
of an occupier is expected to guard against any allurement. This isn’t clearly defned which leads to
unfairness as there is no defniton of what age the allurement defence extends to.
The rules of carrying out a trade under secton 2(3)(b) relieves the liability of the occupier where
they are expected to guard against risks associated with their employment. There are special rules
which are based on independent contractors which is held under secton 2(()(b). This makes it fair
for the occupier and the claimant can stll take acton against the contractor in negligence. However,
it is highly unlikely that someone would check the insurance details of an independent contractor.
However, in the case of Haseldine, the decision was fair as occupiers shouldn’t check complex work
or check to see if it has been completed.
The occupier’s duty of care owed can be altered, extended restricted and excluded to avoid owing a
duty of care to visitors. This means that it is available to the occupier for avoiding liability at a more
extensive rate under common law. It could be questoned if the liability could be avoided so easily
where there are principles which are fair to both partes. The warnings must be reasonable and
wouldn’t apply to children. There were exclusions where there have been exemptons which means
they have a limited use where they protect claimants to ensure they receive compensaton.
The Occupiers Liability Act 198( was passed to create a common duty of care to all lawful visitors as
there are diferent dutes which are owed to diferent types of lawful visitors. This has the efect of
being more fair and consistent to diferent lawful visitors and occupiers. The Act ofers less
protecton than the 1957 Act, as it refects the status of the trespasser as it is harder to succeed in a
claim as more must established of secton 1 (3). This means that only compensaton for person injury
is awarded where there are fair and balances which interests of both partes.
There are no exclusions which are mentoned as it isn’t clear whether this was an oversight by
Parliament. This gives trespassers more protecton than lawful visitors as liability cannot be
