Occupiers’ Liability AO1
OLA 1957
Occupiers’ liability is a branch of negligence that is covered by 2 statutes. The Occupiers’
Liability Act 1957 concerns lawful visitors and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 covers
trespassers. An occupier is anyone who has control over the land (Wheat v Lacon).
‘Premises’ is defined in S.1(3) as any fixed or moveable structure including a vessel, vehicle
or aircraft.
To be found liable for occupiers’ liability (1957), 5 steps must be satisfied. 1. Was the
claimant a lawful visitor? S.2(1) OLA 1957 defines a lawful visitor as an invitee, a licensee,
those with contractual permission and those with a statutory right such as a police officer
with a warrant. If C is a lawful visitor then the occupier owes them a common duty of care. 2.
Has the occupier satisfied his duty of care? S.2(2) OLA 1957 - the occupier must take care
to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose in which
he is invited to be there. Premises need not be completely safe. The occupier just has to
take reasonable care (Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway). There must be a real source of
danger; not minor defects (Dean of Rochester Cathedral v Debell). 3. Was the claimant a
lawful child visitor? S.2(3)(a) OLA 1957 says occupiers should be prepared for children to be
less careful than adults and that the premises must be reasonably safe for a child that age.
The general principle, found in Glasgow Corporation v Taylor/Jolley v Sutton, is that anything
that could be classed as alluring to children should be protected against. Phipps v Rochester
Corporations found that children should be under the supervision of parents or other adults.
4. Was the claimant carrying out a trade? S.2(3) OLA 1957 - the occupier can expect a
tradesman to guard against any risks which they should know about or be expected to know
about. Roles v Nathan held that the occupiers were not liable as they could have expected a
chimney sweep to be aware of the dangers of carbon monoxide. 5. Was the claimant an
independent contractor? S.2(4) OLA 1957 says that an occupier can pass liability to the
contractor for negligent work if 3 factors are met - a) Is it reasonable for the occupier to have
given the work to the contractor? (Haseldine v Daw), b) Is the contractor competent to carry
out the task? (Bottomley v Todmorden CC), c) Has the occupier checked the work has been
properly done? (Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings). An occupier will be liable for personal
injury and property damage under the 1957 Act.
Defences available -
● Contributory negligence
● Consent
● Warning Notices – s2(4) – must enable visitor to be reasonably safe
● Exclusion Clauses
Contributory Negligence
This is a part defence to negligence and occupiers liability. Argues that the claimant partly
caused the injuries suffered and asks the court to reduce the blame and the damages to be
paid. The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 provides that any damages
awarded to the C can be reduced according to the extent or level to which they had
contributed to their own harm:
● The judgement will set out the full amount of damages as if there was no CN
OLA 1957
Occupiers’ liability is a branch of negligence that is covered by 2 statutes. The Occupiers’
Liability Act 1957 concerns lawful visitors and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 covers
trespassers. An occupier is anyone who has control over the land (Wheat v Lacon).
‘Premises’ is defined in S.1(3) as any fixed or moveable structure including a vessel, vehicle
or aircraft.
To be found liable for occupiers’ liability (1957), 5 steps must be satisfied. 1. Was the
claimant a lawful visitor? S.2(1) OLA 1957 defines a lawful visitor as an invitee, a licensee,
those with contractual permission and those with a statutory right such as a police officer
with a warrant. If C is a lawful visitor then the occupier owes them a common duty of care. 2.
Has the occupier satisfied his duty of care? S.2(2) OLA 1957 - the occupier must take care
to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose in which
he is invited to be there. Premises need not be completely safe. The occupier just has to
take reasonable care (Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway). There must be a real source of
danger; not minor defects (Dean of Rochester Cathedral v Debell). 3. Was the claimant a
lawful child visitor? S.2(3)(a) OLA 1957 says occupiers should be prepared for children to be
less careful than adults and that the premises must be reasonably safe for a child that age.
The general principle, found in Glasgow Corporation v Taylor/Jolley v Sutton, is that anything
that could be classed as alluring to children should be protected against. Phipps v Rochester
Corporations found that children should be under the supervision of parents or other adults.
4. Was the claimant carrying out a trade? S.2(3) OLA 1957 - the occupier can expect a
tradesman to guard against any risks which they should know about or be expected to know
about. Roles v Nathan held that the occupiers were not liable as they could have expected a
chimney sweep to be aware of the dangers of carbon monoxide. 5. Was the claimant an
independent contractor? S.2(4) OLA 1957 says that an occupier can pass liability to the
contractor for negligent work if 3 factors are met - a) Is it reasonable for the occupier to have
given the work to the contractor? (Haseldine v Daw), b) Is the contractor competent to carry
out the task? (Bottomley v Todmorden CC), c) Has the occupier checked the work has been
properly done? (Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings). An occupier will be liable for personal
injury and property damage under the 1957 Act.
Defences available -
● Contributory negligence
● Consent
● Warning Notices – s2(4) – must enable visitor to be reasonably safe
● Exclusion Clauses
Contributory Negligence
This is a part defence to negligence and occupiers liability. Argues that the claimant partly
caused the injuries suffered and asks the court to reduce the blame and the damages to be
paid. The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 provides that any damages
awarded to the C can be reduced according to the extent or level to which they had
contributed to their own harm:
● The judgement will set out the full amount of damages as if there was no CN
