Occupiers Liability: Non-visitors
1. Did the injury arise from the state of the premises?
Premise is classed as ‘any fixed or movable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or
aircraft’ – OLA 1957 S.1(3)
- A ladder could be premises: Wheeler v Copas
Use the PQ to work out if the injury amounted from a harm on the state of the premise.
Activities performed on the premise would not count. It has to be a harm that occurs due to
the inherent state of the premise.
Some features of the land may not be inherently dangerous but cause harm. In Tomlinson v
Congleton it was said the lake was not dangerous, however if they were a child then they
would have been able to due as you need to consider the age and mentality (s.2(3a)).
However, if a child makes a non-dangerous feature dangerous then the occupier does not
owe a DoC depending on the context– Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust.
When it comes to possessions that people have e.g. property, the OLA 1957 also requires
that reasonable steps must be taken to ensure property is not damaged from the premises
being in a dangerous condition. This also applies to the property of trespassers.
If the harm does not arise from the premise then there may be a claim in negligence, but
the occupiers liability act would not apply.
If the harm does amount from the state of the premise then you should move onto question
2.
2. Who is the occupier?
An occupier is a person who has ‘sufficient degree of control over the premises’, (S.1(2)) you
do not need exclusive occupation, two or more people may be occupiers – Wheat v E Lacon
You do not need to own the property as long as you have control – this extends to
contractors who have temporary control.
If the property is empty, then it is the owner will be classed as the occupier: Harris v
Birkenhead Corporation.
If there is a tenant, then they can be the occupier if they rent it from the owner but the
owner can also still be an occupier.
If a licensee is living in the property on a casual basis, owner will be the occupier (Wheat v
Lacon & Co) If they have limited rights, then it is unlikely they will be the occupier.
If a contractor is conducting work on a property (so nobody may live in it), the owner is the
occupier, but the contractors may also be an occupier if they have sufficient control. You can
have multiple occupiers.
1. Did the injury arise from the state of the premises?
Premise is classed as ‘any fixed or movable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or
aircraft’ – OLA 1957 S.1(3)
- A ladder could be premises: Wheeler v Copas
Use the PQ to work out if the injury amounted from a harm on the state of the premise.
Activities performed on the premise would not count. It has to be a harm that occurs due to
the inherent state of the premise.
Some features of the land may not be inherently dangerous but cause harm. In Tomlinson v
Congleton it was said the lake was not dangerous, however if they were a child then they
would have been able to due as you need to consider the age and mentality (s.2(3a)).
However, if a child makes a non-dangerous feature dangerous then the occupier does not
owe a DoC depending on the context– Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust.
When it comes to possessions that people have e.g. property, the OLA 1957 also requires
that reasonable steps must be taken to ensure property is not damaged from the premises
being in a dangerous condition. This also applies to the property of trespassers.
If the harm does not arise from the premise then there may be a claim in negligence, but
the occupiers liability act would not apply.
If the harm does amount from the state of the premise then you should move onto question
2.
2. Who is the occupier?
An occupier is a person who has ‘sufficient degree of control over the premises’, (S.1(2)) you
do not need exclusive occupation, two or more people may be occupiers – Wheat v E Lacon
You do not need to own the property as long as you have control – this extends to
contractors who have temporary control.
If the property is empty, then it is the owner will be classed as the occupier: Harris v
Birkenhead Corporation.
If there is a tenant, then they can be the occupier if they rent it from the owner but the
owner can also still be an occupier.
If a licensee is living in the property on a casual basis, owner will be the occupier (Wheat v
Lacon & Co) If they have limited rights, then it is unlikely they will be the occupier.
If a contractor is conducting work on a property (so nobody may live in it), the owner is the
occupier, but the contractors may also be an occupier if they have sufficient control. You can
have multiple occupiers.
