Week 23 – Occupiers Liability
WHAT IS OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY?
- Liability an occupier has in failing to take reasonable care to ensure that ppl coming onto his land are
reasonably safe whilst they are there
- At its simplest, OL is the liability which a person has by reason of their occupation of premises for harm
which results from the dangerous state of those premises.
- As such, occupiers’ liability is concerned with dangers arising from the static condition of the premises
rather than dangers arising from activities occurring on the premises.
- OL is a mix of common law and statute and is really a sub-set of the tort of negligence: liability arises
where the defendant is in breach of the duty of care which he owes as occupier to the claimant.
Part of law of negligence – dealt w separately as has substantial/ significant statutory base
The 2 acts will be looked at in turn
In practice, one often has to apply the two acts together rather than in isolation
,THE OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY ACTS 1957 & 1984
- OL cannot be understood without reference to two statutes which are mutually exclusive.
- Put broadly, the OLA 1957 applies where the claimant was on the premises lawfully (what the OLA 1957
calls a visitor) and the 1984 Act applies where the claimant was on the land unlawfully (a trespasser).
LIABILITY UNDER THE OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957
OVERVIEW
Broadly, the OLA 1957 comes into play where the claimant was lawfully on premises occupied by the
defendant and suffered injury because of the dangerous state of those premises.
To assess whether in any given situation there will be liability under the OLA 1957, we need to answer a series
of questions:
- Who was the occupier of the premises on which the injury occurred?
- Was the claimant a visitor?
- Did the occupier owe the claimant the common duty of care?
- Did the occupier breach the common duty of care?
- Did that breach cause the injury?
- Can the occupier rely on any defences?
- What remedy is the claimant entitled to?
To conclude, we will then look at various miscellaneous features of liability under the OLA 1957.
Helpful place to start is to identify 'premises'
1. What are Premises?
The OLA 1957 applies where the claimant has suffered harm because of the dangerous state of premises.
Premises are not actually defined by the OLA 1957, although s 1(3) states that premises include fixed or
moveable structures, including vessels, vehicles and aircraft.
It is clear that premises include buildings, and the OLA 1957 has been applied to:
> Houses and flats
> Shops
> Pubs, restaurants and hotels
> Hospitals
> Factories and offices
> Railway stations and airports.
Equally, it is clear that premises also include undeveloped land, ie, land on which there are no buildings. Hence
the OLA 1957 has been applied to:
> Parks and gardens
> Car parks.
, And land includes water. Hence the OLA 1957 has also been applied to:
> Ponds
> lakes.
Fixed structures include walls, fences and gates. Examples of moveable structures are machinery, scaffolding,
ladders. Less obviously perhaps things such as chairs and bar stools have been treated as premises.
Once identified premisses – can then establish who the occupier of those premises is
2. Who is an Occupier?
Once we have identified the premises on which the injury occurred, we can then identify the likely defendant,
being the person who is treated under the Act as the occupier of those premises.
The OLA 1957 does not contain a definition of an occupier.
Instead, s 1(2) provides that ‘the persons who are to be treated as an occupier . . . are the same . . . as the
persons who would at common law be treated as an occupier’.
- At common law, the principal criterion for occupation was control of the premises in the sense of
(i) knowledge of the condition of the premises and the ability to do something about it and
(ii) the right of limiting access to the property, ie who could come on to the property.
Note that there may be more than one occupier of the same premises.
Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] 1 All ER 582 (HL)
- D1 owned a pub and employed D2 as the pub’s manager. D2 lived on the first floor of the pub with his
wife, D3. D1 allowed D3 to take in paying guests who stayed on the first floor. Mr Wheat and his family
were staying as paying guests at the pub. One evening Mr Wheat was killed when he fell down a staircase
between the first and ground floors. At the time of the accident there had been no light bulb in the ceiling
fitting at the top of the staircase. Further, a handrail ended several steps from the foot of the staircase.
Each member of the House of Lords who expressed an opinion on the point, thought that D1, D2 and D3
were all occupiers of the premises. On the facts, none were held liable.
- ‘wherever a person has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realise that any
failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person coming lawfully there, then he is an
"occupier" and the person coming lawfully there is his "visitor": and the "occupier" is under a duty to his
"visitor" to use reasonable care.’ (Lord Denning).
Where a husband and wife are joint owners of the house in which they live, both will be occupiers.
The owner of a property may be the occupier even though she is not ‘living’ at the property.
Dawson v Page [2012] CSOH 33
WHAT IS OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY?
- Liability an occupier has in failing to take reasonable care to ensure that ppl coming onto his land are
reasonably safe whilst they are there
- At its simplest, OL is the liability which a person has by reason of their occupation of premises for harm
which results from the dangerous state of those premises.
- As such, occupiers’ liability is concerned with dangers arising from the static condition of the premises
rather than dangers arising from activities occurring on the premises.
- OL is a mix of common law and statute and is really a sub-set of the tort of negligence: liability arises
where the defendant is in breach of the duty of care which he owes as occupier to the claimant.
Part of law of negligence – dealt w separately as has substantial/ significant statutory base
The 2 acts will be looked at in turn
In practice, one often has to apply the two acts together rather than in isolation
,THE OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY ACTS 1957 & 1984
- OL cannot be understood without reference to two statutes which are mutually exclusive.
- Put broadly, the OLA 1957 applies where the claimant was on the premises lawfully (what the OLA 1957
calls a visitor) and the 1984 Act applies where the claimant was on the land unlawfully (a trespasser).
LIABILITY UNDER THE OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957
OVERVIEW
Broadly, the OLA 1957 comes into play where the claimant was lawfully on premises occupied by the
defendant and suffered injury because of the dangerous state of those premises.
To assess whether in any given situation there will be liability under the OLA 1957, we need to answer a series
of questions:
- Who was the occupier of the premises on which the injury occurred?
- Was the claimant a visitor?
- Did the occupier owe the claimant the common duty of care?
- Did the occupier breach the common duty of care?
- Did that breach cause the injury?
- Can the occupier rely on any defences?
- What remedy is the claimant entitled to?
To conclude, we will then look at various miscellaneous features of liability under the OLA 1957.
Helpful place to start is to identify 'premises'
1. What are Premises?
The OLA 1957 applies where the claimant has suffered harm because of the dangerous state of premises.
Premises are not actually defined by the OLA 1957, although s 1(3) states that premises include fixed or
moveable structures, including vessels, vehicles and aircraft.
It is clear that premises include buildings, and the OLA 1957 has been applied to:
> Houses and flats
> Shops
> Pubs, restaurants and hotels
> Hospitals
> Factories and offices
> Railway stations and airports.
Equally, it is clear that premises also include undeveloped land, ie, land on which there are no buildings. Hence
the OLA 1957 has been applied to:
> Parks and gardens
> Car parks.
, And land includes water. Hence the OLA 1957 has also been applied to:
> Ponds
> lakes.
Fixed structures include walls, fences and gates. Examples of moveable structures are machinery, scaffolding,
ladders. Less obviously perhaps things such as chairs and bar stools have been treated as premises.
Once identified premisses – can then establish who the occupier of those premises is
2. Who is an Occupier?
Once we have identified the premises on which the injury occurred, we can then identify the likely defendant,
being the person who is treated under the Act as the occupier of those premises.
The OLA 1957 does not contain a definition of an occupier.
Instead, s 1(2) provides that ‘the persons who are to be treated as an occupier . . . are the same . . . as the
persons who would at common law be treated as an occupier’.
- At common law, the principal criterion for occupation was control of the premises in the sense of
(i) knowledge of the condition of the premises and the ability to do something about it and
(ii) the right of limiting access to the property, ie who could come on to the property.
Note that there may be more than one occupier of the same premises.
Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] 1 All ER 582 (HL)
- D1 owned a pub and employed D2 as the pub’s manager. D2 lived on the first floor of the pub with his
wife, D3. D1 allowed D3 to take in paying guests who stayed on the first floor. Mr Wheat and his family
were staying as paying guests at the pub. One evening Mr Wheat was killed when he fell down a staircase
between the first and ground floors. At the time of the accident there had been no light bulb in the ceiling
fitting at the top of the staircase. Further, a handrail ended several steps from the foot of the staircase.
Each member of the House of Lords who expressed an opinion on the point, thought that D1, D2 and D3
were all occupiers of the premises. On the facts, none were held liable.
- ‘wherever a person has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realise that any
failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person coming lawfully there, then he is an
"occupier" and the person coming lawfully there is his "visitor": and the "occupier" is under a duty to his
"visitor" to use reasonable care.’ (Lord Denning).
Where a husband and wife are joint owners of the house in which they live, both will be occupiers.
The owner of a property may be the occupier even though she is not ‘living’ at the property.
Dawson v Page [2012] CSOH 33
