Occupiers’ Liability
Occupier’s Liability
Statutory form of liability.
Where Did the Damage Occur?
Off premises.
Nuisance.
Rylands v Fletcher (1868).
The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land. The reservoir
was placed over a disused mine. Water from the reservoir filtered through to the
disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant
causing extensive damage.
The defendants were strictly liable for the damage caused by a non- natural use of
land.
Lord Cranworth – ‘If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it
should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril. If it does
escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been,
and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage’.
On premises.
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.
Either.
Negligence.
The Scope of Occupiers’ Liability
If harm results (even partly) from a danger presented by the state of the premises
where the harm occurs then that is (at least partly) a question of Occupiers’ Liability.
This is governed by a statutory framework (contained in the Occupiers’ Liability Acts
(OLA) 1957 and 1984 that determines when an occupier of premises owes a duty of
care to someone harmed on those premises.
A Question of Duty
The statutory rules determine when a duty of care will be owed. The ordinary
common-law principles of breach of duty (often based on occupiers’ liability cases)
and causation also apply.
In addition to the statutory rules themselves we are interested in how these have
been interpreted in case law in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords/Supreme
Court.
, Previous Common Law Position
Those who entered premises pursuant to a contract, as an invitee or a licensee were
owed a duty of care in relation to dangers that were not obvious but which the
occupier ought to have known about.
Trespassers were only owed a duty in relation to deliberate or reckless injury and to
be treated with common humanity.
British Railways Board v Herrington (1972).
If they were a visitor, apply the 1957 Act.
If they were not a visitor, apply the 1984 Act.
Lawful Visitor vs Unlawful Visitor
The Calgarth (1927) – ‘When you invite a person into your house to use the
staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters’ – Scrutton LJ at 110.
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2004) – ‘A lawful visitor may become an
unlawful visitor if he or she engages in a prohibited activity’.
Congleton Borough Council had attempted to turn a disused quarry into a beauty
spot and country park by turning the quarry into an artificial lake.
The council prohibited swimming, recognising the lake to be dangerous for
swimmers and had prominent signs prohibiting swimming, as well as park rangers
who sought to prevent swimming.
The claimant, ignoring these signs dived in and broke his neck. He sought damages
in negligence under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.
The Court of Appeal held that he was a trespasser and so the case fell under
the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Under the provisions of this act, the claimant was
awarded damages, but these were reduced by two-thirds under the Law Reform
(Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.
The council appealed to the House of Lords.
The appeal was allowed. The council had no liability to the claimant.
The risk of danger was so obvious that it could be said that no risk arose from the
state of the premises under s1(3) Occupiers Liability Act 1984.
Instead, the risk arose from the claimant’s own actions who voluntarily engaged in
this risk. The respondent was a man of full capacity who voluntarily engaged in an
activity which had an inherent risk in it.
There was nothing inherent about the state of the premises which rendered them
any more dangerous than could be expected, and no question of the council being
expected to take any further steps to ensure that trespassers did not use the lake.
‘I think that there is an important question of freedom at stake. It is unjust that the
harmless recreation of responsible parents and children with buckets and spades on
the beaches should be prohibited in order to comply with what is thought to be a
legal duty to safeguard irresponsible visitors against dangers which are perfectly
obvious. The fact that such people take no notice of warnings cannot create a duty
to take other steps to prevent them’ – Lord Hoffman.
Occupier’s Liability
Statutory form of liability.
Where Did the Damage Occur?
Off premises.
Nuisance.
Rylands v Fletcher (1868).
The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land. The reservoir
was placed over a disused mine. Water from the reservoir filtered through to the
disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant
causing extensive damage.
The defendants were strictly liable for the damage caused by a non- natural use of
land.
Lord Cranworth – ‘If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it
should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril. If it does
escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been,
and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage’.
On premises.
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.
Either.
Negligence.
The Scope of Occupiers’ Liability
If harm results (even partly) from a danger presented by the state of the premises
where the harm occurs then that is (at least partly) a question of Occupiers’ Liability.
This is governed by a statutory framework (contained in the Occupiers’ Liability Acts
(OLA) 1957 and 1984 that determines when an occupier of premises owes a duty of
care to someone harmed on those premises.
A Question of Duty
The statutory rules determine when a duty of care will be owed. The ordinary
common-law principles of breach of duty (often based on occupiers’ liability cases)
and causation also apply.
In addition to the statutory rules themselves we are interested in how these have
been interpreted in case law in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords/Supreme
Court.
, Previous Common Law Position
Those who entered premises pursuant to a contract, as an invitee or a licensee were
owed a duty of care in relation to dangers that were not obvious but which the
occupier ought to have known about.
Trespassers were only owed a duty in relation to deliberate or reckless injury and to
be treated with common humanity.
British Railways Board v Herrington (1972).
If they were a visitor, apply the 1957 Act.
If they were not a visitor, apply the 1984 Act.
Lawful Visitor vs Unlawful Visitor
The Calgarth (1927) – ‘When you invite a person into your house to use the
staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters’ – Scrutton LJ at 110.
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2004) – ‘A lawful visitor may become an
unlawful visitor if he or she engages in a prohibited activity’.
Congleton Borough Council had attempted to turn a disused quarry into a beauty
spot and country park by turning the quarry into an artificial lake.
The council prohibited swimming, recognising the lake to be dangerous for
swimmers and had prominent signs prohibiting swimming, as well as park rangers
who sought to prevent swimming.
The claimant, ignoring these signs dived in and broke his neck. He sought damages
in negligence under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.
The Court of Appeal held that he was a trespasser and so the case fell under
the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Under the provisions of this act, the claimant was
awarded damages, but these were reduced by two-thirds under the Law Reform
(Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.
The council appealed to the House of Lords.
The appeal was allowed. The council had no liability to the claimant.
The risk of danger was so obvious that it could be said that no risk arose from the
state of the premises under s1(3) Occupiers Liability Act 1984.
Instead, the risk arose from the claimant’s own actions who voluntarily engaged in
this risk. The respondent was a man of full capacity who voluntarily engaged in an
activity which had an inherent risk in it.
There was nothing inherent about the state of the premises which rendered them
any more dangerous than could be expected, and no question of the council being
expected to take any further steps to ensure that trespassers did not use the lake.
‘I think that there is an important question of freedom at stake. It is unjust that the
harmless recreation of responsible parents and children with buckets and spades on
the beaches should be prohibited in order to comply with what is thought to be a
legal duty to safeguard irresponsible visitors against dangers which are perfectly
obvious. The fact that such people take no notice of warnings cannot create a duty
to take other steps to prevent them’ – Lord Hoffman.
