TORT LAW REVISION: OCCUPIERS LIABILITY – LEGAL ISSUES:
1. Was injury caused by the “state of premises/ anything 2. Does the place 3. Is D an occupier: 4. Is Cl. a lawful visitor at the time of injury:
done/ not done on premises”: of injury amount • S1(2) OLA 1957: “occupation, control or CL occupier (visitors) • S1(2) OLA 1957: lawful visitor has invitation, permission or is a CL invitee/ licensee
to “premises”: • S1(2) OLA 1984: same definition for trespassers • Lowery v Walker (1911): Cl. acquired implied licence through repeated trespass
• S1(1) OLA 1957 (visitors) & S1(1) OLA 1984 (trespassers): • S1(3) OLA 1957: • Wheat v Lacon (1966): sufficient degree of control – dual on D’s land – D did not object – Cl. considered as lawful visitor (Note: post OLA
’57 & ’84 Acts apply only if Cl.’s injury caused by state of “any fixed or occupation is possible – managers (licence agreement) and 1984 there may be no need for such treatment)
premises, anything done or not done on them movable owner of pub = occupiers • Anderson v Coutts (1894): D may restrict permission with notice – visitor who
• Ogwo v Taylor (1987): NO - injury X caused by state of structure, • AMF International v Magnet Bowling (1968): independent exceeds restriction = trespasser
premises – fire ¹ state of premises, caused by D’s negligent vehicle, vessel” contractors considered occupiers even though control only over • The Calgarth (1927): certain restrictions are obvious; no notice is needed:
act – OLA X apply – liability under negligence (for visitors) certain parts of premise • Gould v McAuliffe (1941): Cl. entered back area of bar in search of toilet –
• Cunningham v Reading FC (1991): YES – D liable for state • S 1(2) OLA • Harris v Birkenhead (1976): Abandoned property – after 14-day attacked by dog – Cl. remained lawful visitor – no proper sign
of premises (concrete) & things done on premises (acts of 1984: same notice, actual owner did X take possession – property fell into D’s • Stone v Taffee (1974): occupier must clearly indicate limits of permission –
spectators) definition for possession. D = occupier otherwise Cl. remains a lawful visitor
• Revill v Newberry (1995): NO – liability for careless acts trespassers • Collier v Anglian Water Authority (1983): Cl. tripped over a • Harvey v Plymouth CC (2010): D owned open land – known that teens ran across
should fall under negligence instead (shooting) • Haseldine v paving stone on the sea defence wall promenade – D (water the land – implied licence. H/ver where Cl. ran across land & fell into 5m drop =
• Shorten v Grafton DGC (2000): kangaroos = state of Daw (1941): an authority) & local authority responsible under statute – D trespasser – drunk, reckless & irresponsible – did X pay taxi fare earlier
premises – liability under OLA elevator = deemed occupier • S2(6) OLA 1957: those entering the premise in exercise of a legal right = visitors
• Tomlinson v Congleton BC (2003): NO – Cl.’s injury caused premise • Bailey v Armes (1990): D X occupier of part of property not • S5(1) OLA 1957: those entering pursuant to a contract = visitors
by Cl.’s own act, X by state of premises – premises not • Wheeler v within service agreement NOTE:
dangerous (H/ver L.Hoffman & Hobhouse’s opinion (obiter) Copas (1981): • Furmedge v Chester-Le-Street DC (2011): Events company & Ø If Cl. does not fall within S1(2), S2(6) or S5(1) OR restriction applies – Cl. =
– things done = careless activity by occupier or others – ladder = owner of land deemed occupier where large tent-like inflatable trespasser – OLA 1984 applies (S1(1) OLA 1984)
falls within S1(1) premise structure flew off killing 2 Ø Before OLA 1984 young children trespassing because of an allurement = visitors:
• Shtern v Cummings (2014): Owner of land = occupier of land but Cooke v GMWRI (1909), Herrington v BRB (1971). Now, they are likely to be
NOTE: if injury doesn’t fall within S1(1), claim under CL neg. not of contents of building constructed by another considered trespassers under OLA 1984.
5. Liability towards trespassers (OLA 1984)
Duty & Standard of Care Warning
S1(3): occupier would owe trespasser duty of care if: (ALL 3 must be satisfied)
(a): knew/ reasonable grounds to believe that there is danger on the premise: S1(5): duty to trespasser may be discharged by giving warning of danger:
• Tomlinson (2003): having placed signs around lake X reason to believe danger exists on premise • Westwood v Post Office (1973): Cl. (e/ee) entered motor room despite sign
• Rhind v Astbury (2004): Cl. ignored notice on private property stating “Strictly no swimming” – jumped into lake – injured by fiberglass beneath water – excluding entry to unauthorized persons – restriction notice deemed sufficient
occupier has no reason to believe that there is danger – no duty owed warning too – any adult would appreciate & abide by restriction – implied that
purpose of restriction was to keep Cl. away from danger
(b): knew/ reasonable grounds to believe that someone was in the vicinity of danger:
• White v St. Albans CC (1990): D had taken steps to exclude public from entering – deemed X knowledge of presence of Cl. Defences:
• Swain v NR Puri (1995): D previously warned not to access the skylight roof of factory –X evidence of knowledge of presence of Cl. – actual knowledge S1(6): volenti non-fit injuria – D X liable where Cl. knew risk & assumed the same:
or “shut-eye” knowledge was necessary – Ct. will look at primary facts • Ratcliffe v McConnell (1999): Cl. drunk, 19yr old – entered school during winter
• Donoghue v Folkestone (2003): D knew public used his premise as diving point – H/ver X known that Cl. would dive at midnight during winter (when it was closed) – dived into shallow end – saw ‘Warning’ sign – deemed
• Higgs v Foster (2004): Cl. (policeman) trespassed on D’s property to investigate suspected stolen vehicle – late at night – dark – fell into pit. D X volenti – knew risk of injury – D X liable
knowledge – on facts – nothing abt. premise to suggest that presence of trespasser was likely – pit was behind a trailer – entry not near pit • Keown (2006): volenti established against Cl. even though Cl. was an 11yr. old –
on facts, clear that Cl. was aware of dangers of his actions
(c): type of danger – requires protection by occupier:
• Siddorn v Patel (2007): Cl. fell through skylight roof –no danger on premise that needed protection – injury caused by Cl.’s act NOTE:
• Keown v Coventry NHST (2006): D restricted access to external fire escape – Cl. fell off building after climbing over – injury due to Cl.’s act Where injury to trespasser appears to be caused by trespasser’s own act of
• Tomlinson: type of risk - not one which the occupier is expected to guard against – Cl. chose to run the risk to his own detriment trespassing/ carrying out some dangerous act on the premise – unlikely for occupier
to be liable – fails S1(1) OLA 1984 – injury considered to be caused by trespasser’s
S1(4): occupier only needs to take reasonable care in circumstances to prevent injury to trespasser act & not state of premise: Tomlinson, Keown, Rhind, Ratcliffe
• Platt v Liverpool CC (1997): D covered windows & doors using metal sheet & inspected abandoned house daily – Cl. injured when playing in house –
house collapsed – D X fall below reasonable std. No liability for property damage: S1(8)
• Tomlinson: degree of care taken by occupier was deemed to meet the reasonable standard – nothing more was needed
1. Was injury caused by the “state of premises/ anything 2. Does the place 3. Is D an occupier: 4. Is Cl. a lawful visitor at the time of injury:
done/ not done on premises”: of injury amount • S1(2) OLA 1957: “occupation, control or CL occupier (visitors) • S1(2) OLA 1957: lawful visitor has invitation, permission or is a CL invitee/ licensee
to “premises”: • S1(2) OLA 1984: same definition for trespassers • Lowery v Walker (1911): Cl. acquired implied licence through repeated trespass
• S1(1) OLA 1957 (visitors) & S1(1) OLA 1984 (trespassers): • S1(3) OLA 1957: • Wheat v Lacon (1966): sufficient degree of control – dual on D’s land – D did not object – Cl. considered as lawful visitor (Note: post OLA
’57 & ’84 Acts apply only if Cl.’s injury caused by state of “any fixed or occupation is possible – managers (licence agreement) and 1984 there may be no need for such treatment)
premises, anything done or not done on them movable owner of pub = occupiers • Anderson v Coutts (1894): D may restrict permission with notice – visitor who
• Ogwo v Taylor (1987): NO - injury X caused by state of structure, • AMF International v Magnet Bowling (1968): independent exceeds restriction = trespasser
premises – fire ¹ state of premises, caused by D’s negligent vehicle, vessel” contractors considered occupiers even though control only over • The Calgarth (1927): certain restrictions are obvious; no notice is needed:
act – OLA X apply – liability under negligence (for visitors) certain parts of premise • Gould v McAuliffe (1941): Cl. entered back area of bar in search of toilet –
• Cunningham v Reading FC (1991): YES – D liable for state • S 1(2) OLA • Harris v Birkenhead (1976): Abandoned property – after 14-day attacked by dog – Cl. remained lawful visitor – no proper sign
of premises (concrete) & things done on premises (acts of 1984: same notice, actual owner did X take possession – property fell into D’s • Stone v Taffee (1974): occupier must clearly indicate limits of permission –
spectators) definition for possession. D = occupier otherwise Cl. remains a lawful visitor
• Revill v Newberry (1995): NO – liability for careless acts trespassers • Collier v Anglian Water Authority (1983): Cl. tripped over a • Harvey v Plymouth CC (2010): D owned open land – known that teens ran across
should fall under negligence instead (shooting) • Haseldine v paving stone on the sea defence wall promenade – D (water the land – implied licence. H/ver where Cl. ran across land & fell into 5m drop =
• Shorten v Grafton DGC (2000): kangaroos = state of Daw (1941): an authority) & local authority responsible under statute – D trespasser – drunk, reckless & irresponsible – did X pay taxi fare earlier
premises – liability under OLA elevator = deemed occupier • S2(6) OLA 1957: those entering the premise in exercise of a legal right = visitors
• Tomlinson v Congleton BC (2003): NO – Cl.’s injury caused premise • Bailey v Armes (1990): D X occupier of part of property not • S5(1) OLA 1957: those entering pursuant to a contract = visitors
by Cl.’s own act, X by state of premises – premises not • Wheeler v within service agreement NOTE:
dangerous (H/ver L.Hoffman & Hobhouse’s opinion (obiter) Copas (1981): • Furmedge v Chester-Le-Street DC (2011): Events company & Ø If Cl. does not fall within S1(2), S2(6) or S5(1) OR restriction applies – Cl. =
– things done = careless activity by occupier or others – ladder = owner of land deemed occupier where large tent-like inflatable trespasser – OLA 1984 applies (S1(1) OLA 1984)
falls within S1(1) premise structure flew off killing 2 Ø Before OLA 1984 young children trespassing because of an allurement = visitors:
• Shtern v Cummings (2014): Owner of land = occupier of land but Cooke v GMWRI (1909), Herrington v BRB (1971). Now, they are likely to be
NOTE: if injury doesn’t fall within S1(1), claim under CL neg. not of contents of building constructed by another considered trespassers under OLA 1984.
5. Liability towards trespassers (OLA 1984)
Duty & Standard of Care Warning
S1(3): occupier would owe trespasser duty of care if: (ALL 3 must be satisfied)
(a): knew/ reasonable grounds to believe that there is danger on the premise: S1(5): duty to trespasser may be discharged by giving warning of danger:
• Tomlinson (2003): having placed signs around lake X reason to believe danger exists on premise • Westwood v Post Office (1973): Cl. (e/ee) entered motor room despite sign
• Rhind v Astbury (2004): Cl. ignored notice on private property stating “Strictly no swimming” – jumped into lake – injured by fiberglass beneath water – excluding entry to unauthorized persons – restriction notice deemed sufficient
occupier has no reason to believe that there is danger – no duty owed warning too – any adult would appreciate & abide by restriction – implied that
purpose of restriction was to keep Cl. away from danger
(b): knew/ reasonable grounds to believe that someone was in the vicinity of danger:
• White v St. Albans CC (1990): D had taken steps to exclude public from entering – deemed X knowledge of presence of Cl. Defences:
• Swain v NR Puri (1995): D previously warned not to access the skylight roof of factory –X evidence of knowledge of presence of Cl. – actual knowledge S1(6): volenti non-fit injuria – D X liable where Cl. knew risk & assumed the same:
or “shut-eye” knowledge was necessary – Ct. will look at primary facts • Ratcliffe v McConnell (1999): Cl. drunk, 19yr old – entered school during winter
• Donoghue v Folkestone (2003): D knew public used his premise as diving point – H/ver X known that Cl. would dive at midnight during winter (when it was closed) – dived into shallow end – saw ‘Warning’ sign – deemed
• Higgs v Foster (2004): Cl. (policeman) trespassed on D’s property to investigate suspected stolen vehicle – late at night – dark – fell into pit. D X volenti – knew risk of injury – D X liable
knowledge – on facts – nothing abt. premise to suggest that presence of trespasser was likely – pit was behind a trailer – entry not near pit • Keown (2006): volenti established against Cl. even though Cl. was an 11yr. old –
on facts, clear that Cl. was aware of dangers of his actions
(c): type of danger – requires protection by occupier:
• Siddorn v Patel (2007): Cl. fell through skylight roof –no danger on premise that needed protection – injury caused by Cl.’s act NOTE:
• Keown v Coventry NHST (2006): D restricted access to external fire escape – Cl. fell off building after climbing over – injury due to Cl.’s act Where injury to trespasser appears to be caused by trespasser’s own act of
• Tomlinson: type of risk - not one which the occupier is expected to guard against – Cl. chose to run the risk to his own detriment trespassing/ carrying out some dangerous act on the premise – unlikely for occupier
to be liable – fails S1(1) OLA 1984 – injury considered to be caused by trespasser’s
S1(4): occupier only needs to take reasonable care in circumstances to prevent injury to trespasser act & not state of premise: Tomlinson, Keown, Rhind, Ratcliffe
• Platt v Liverpool CC (1997): D covered windows & doors using metal sheet & inspected abandoned house daily – Cl. injured when playing in house –
house collapsed – D X fall below reasonable std. No liability for property damage: S1(8)
• Tomlinson: degree of care taken by occupier was deemed to meet the reasonable standard – nothing more was needed
