The occupiers liability concerns the liability of an occupier of land for the claimant’s injury or
loss or damage to property suffered while on the occupiers' premises. The tort is found in
two statues: Occupiers liability act 1957, which covers the duty of care owed to lawful visitors
and the Occupiers liability act 1984 which covers the duty owed to persons other than lawful
visitors. In Wheat v Lacon and Co four categories of occupier for 1957 were identified: if a
landlord lets premises then the tenant will be the occupier, if a landlord who lets part of a
building, retains certain areas then the landlord will be the occupier in respect of those
areas, if an owner licence allows a person to use the premises but reserves the right of entry
then the owner remains the occupier and if contractors are employed to carry out work on
the premises, the owner will generally remain the occupier, although there may be
circumstances where the contractor could be the occupier. A visitor is a person who has
express or implied permission to enter the premises. An occupier of the premises owes the
same duty to all their visitors but they can extend, restrict, modify or exclude this duty to any
visitor or visitors by agreement. A common duty is to take reasonable care in all
circumstances to see that the visitor is reasonably safe when using the premises. The OLA
1957 lays out guidelines in applying the common duty of care. S2 (3) states that an occupier
must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. S2 (3) states that occupiers
must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and as a result the premises
must be reasonably safe for a child of that age. For example in Phillip v Rochester, A five-
year-old child was playing on open ground owned by the council with his seven-year-old
sister. He fell down a trench and was injured. The court decided that the council was not
liable as the occupier is entitled to expect that parents should not allow their young children
to go to places which are potentially unsafe. S2 (3) b states that an occupier can expect a
person, in the exercise of their calling to appreciate and guard against any special risk
ordinarily incident to it. For example in Roles v Nathan two chimney sweeps died after
inhaling carbon monoxide fumes while cleaning the chimney of a coke-fired
boiler. The sweeps had been warned of the danger. The occupiers were not liable as they
could have expected the chimney sweeps to be aware of this particular danger.
S2 (4) states that a warning may discharge the duty of care. For example in Rae v Marrs
This case involved a deep pit inside a dark shed so a warning by itself was insufficient as it
could not be seen. S2 (4) b states that the occupier is not liable for the fault of an
independent contractor if they acted reasonably in entrusting the work to that contractor and
took reasonable steps to ensure that the contractor was competent and the work was
properly carried out. For example in Haseldine v Daw the claimant was killed when a lift
plunged to the bottom of a shaft. The occupier was not liable for the negligent repair or
maintenance of the lift as this work is a highly specialist activity and it was reasonable to
give the work to a specialist firm. Under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 there are
circumstances where the occupier of premises owes a statutory duty of care to an unlawful
visitor: they are aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe that it exists and
they know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the unlawful visitor is in the vicinity of
the danger covered or that they may come into the vicinity of the danger. Under S1 (4) of the
Occupiers Liability Act 1984 the duty owed to persons other than visitors is to take
reasonable care in all the circumstances to see that they are not injured on the premises by
the danger concerned. For example in British Railways Board v Herrington a six-year-old
boy was badly burned when he trespassed onto an electrified railway line through
vandalised fencing. British Rail was aware of gaps in the fencing and that children played in
the area. The House of Lords, using the practice statement, established the “common duty
loss or damage to property suffered while on the occupiers' premises. The tort is found in
two statues: Occupiers liability act 1957, which covers the duty of care owed to lawful visitors
and the Occupiers liability act 1984 which covers the duty owed to persons other than lawful
visitors. In Wheat v Lacon and Co four categories of occupier for 1957 were identified: if a
landlord lets premises then the tenant will be the occupier, if a landlord who lets part of a
building, retains certain areas then the landlord will be the occupier in respect of those
areas, if an owner licence allows a person to use the premises but reserves the right of entry
then the owner remains the occupier and if contractors are employed to carry out work on
the premises, the owner will generally remain the occupier, although there may be
circumstances where the contractor could be the occupier. A visitor is a person who has
express or implied permission to enter the premises. An occupier of the premises owes the
same duty to all their visitors but they can extend, restrict, modify or exclude this duty to any
visitor or visitors by agreement. A common duty is to take reasonable care in all
circumstances to see that the visitor is reasonably safe when using the premises. The OLA
1957 lays out guidelines in applying the common duty of care. S2 (3) states that an occupier
must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. S2 (3) states that occupiers
must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and as a result the premises
must be reasonably safe for a child of that age. For example in Phillip v Rochester, A five-
year-old child was playing on open ground owned by the council with his seven-year-old
sister. He fell down a trench and was injured. The court decided that the council was not
liable as the occupier is entitled to expect that parents should not allow their young children
to go to places which are potentially unsafe. S2 (3) b states that an occupier can expect a
person, in the exercise of their calling to appreciate and guard against any special risk
ordinarily incident to it. For example in Roles v Nathan two chimney sweeps died after
inhaling carbon monoxide fumes while cleaning the chimney of a coke-fired
boiler. The sweeps had been warned of the danger. The occupiers were not liable as they
could have expected the chimney sweeps to be aware of this particular danger.
S2 (4) states that a warning may discharge the duty of care. For example in Rae v Marrs
This case involved a deep pit inside a dark shed so a warning by itself was insufficient as it
could not be seen. S2 (4) b states that the occupier is not liable for the fault of an
independent contractor if they acted reasonably in entrusting the work to that contractor and
took reasonable steps to ensure that the contractor was competent and the work was
properly carried out. For example in Haseldine v Daw the claimant was killed when a lift
plunged to the bottom of a shaft. The occupier was not liable for the negligent repair or
maintenance of the lift as this work is a highly specialist activity and it was reasonable to
give the work to a specialist firm. Under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 there are
circumstances where the occupier of premises owes a statutory duty of care to an unlawful
visitor: they are aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe that it exists and
they know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the unlawful visitor is in the vicinity of
the danger covered or that they may come into the vicinity of the danger. Under S1 (4) of the
Occupiers Liability Act 1984 the duty owed to persons other than visitors is to take
reasonable care in all the circumstances to see that they are not injured on the premises by
the danger concerned. For example in British Railways Board v Herrington a six-year-old
boy was badly burned when he trespassed onto an electrified railway line through
vandalised fencing. British Rail was aware of gaps in the fencing and that children played in
the area. The House of Lords, using the practice statement, established the “common duty
