Defences to Occupier’s Liability
- Contributory negligence
- Consent
- Warning notices
- Exclusion clauses
Contributory negligence
The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945:
- This defence recognises that both the defendant and the claimant are each partly to blame
for the injury suffered by the claimant. The amount of blame to be
Consent
- This is where the claimant voluntarily assumes the risk of harm. If the defence is successful,
the claimant will receive no damages.
- To succeed, the defendant must show:
1. The claimant had knowledge of the precise risk involved.
2. There is exercise of free choice by the claimant.
3. The claimant voluntarily accepts the risk.
Warning notices
- Full defence
- The warning can be written or spoken
- S2(4)(a) OLA 1957
- A warning notice will be ineffective unless it is enough to keep the visitor reasonably safe.
When deciding whether a warning notice is sufficient, a close analysis of the facts of the case must
be taken. If the premises are extremely dangerous or unusual, the occupier may be required to do
more (such as erected barriers) to keep their visitors safe.
Rae v Marrs (UK) Ltd (1990)
- There was a deep put inside the premises (which was a dark shed). Despite there being a
warning, the Courts said that this was insufficient.
- The defence could not be used here because the danger here was extreme so the occupier
should have done more e.g., a barrier or an additional notice.
Where the danger is obvious and the visitor is able to clearly understand this, no additional warning
is needed. For trespassers, this defence forms part of the legal principle that protects occupiers from
a claim against trespassers.
Staples v West Dorset District Council (1995)
- The claimant fractured their hip when they slipped and fell off a harbour wall. This wall was
a well-known tourist attraction (‘The Cobb’) and it was covered in algae and extremely
slippery when wet.
- Despite there being no warning signs present, the Courts said that the dangers of slipping
were obvious and known to the claimant, meaning no further warning was required.
This defence forms a part of the legal principles that protects occupiers from a claim against
trespassers. However, whether a warning sign is ‘sufficient’ for a child trespasser will depend on the
age and understanding of the child.
- Contributory negligence
- Consent
- Warning notices
- Exclusion clauses
Contributory negligence
The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945:
- This defence recognises that both the defendant and the claimant are each partly to blame
for the injury suffered by the claimant. The amount of blame to be
Consent
- This is where the claimant voluntarily assumes the risk of harm. If the defence is successful,
the claimant will receive no damages.
- To succeed, the defendant must show:
1. The claimant had knowledge of the precise risk involved.
2. There is exercise of free choice by the claimant.
3. The claimant voluntarily accepts the risk.
Warning notices
- Full defence
- The warning can be written or spoken
- S2(4)(a) OLA 1957
- A warning notice will be ineffective unless it is enough to keep the visitor reasonably safe.
When deciding whether a warning notice is sufficient, a close analysis of the facts of the case must
be taken. If the premises are extremely dangerous or unusual, the occupier may be required to do
more (such as erected barriers) to keep their visitors safe.
Rae v Marrs (UK) Ltd (1990)
- There was a deep put inside the premises (which was a dark shed). Despite there being a
warning, the Courts said that this was insufficient.
- The defence could not be used here because the danger here was extreme so the occupier
should have done more e.g., a barrier or an additional notice.
Where the danger is obvious and the visitor is able to clearly understand this, no additional warning
is needed. For trespassers, this defence forms part of the legal principle that protects occupiers from
a claim against trespassers.
Staples v West Dorset District Council (1995)
- The claimant fractured their hip when they slipped and fell off a harbour wall. This wall was
a well-known tourist attraction (‘The Cobb’) and it was covered in algae and extremely
slippery when wet.
- Despite there being no warning signs present, the Courts said that the dangers of slipping
were obvious and known to the claimant, meaning no further warning was required.
This defence forms a part of the legal principles that protects occupiers from a claim against
trespassers. However, whether a warning sign is ‘sufficient’ for a child trespasser will depend on the
age and understanding of the child.
