Sem2 - L1 - Occupiers Liability 1

Tort Law & Civil Remedies

Occupiers Liability 1
1957 Act
© Staffordshire University Law School 2017

1. lecture introduction
What are we looking at today?
•
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
•
Who is an Occupier?
•
Who is a Visitor?
•
Nature and Extent of the Duty.
•
Children, Skilled Visitors and
Independent Contractors
•
Impact of Warnings
•
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
Page 1
2. occupiers’ liability
Occupiers’ Liability is concerned

with the liability of an occupier for
damage done to visitors on the
premises.
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 -

liability to visitors
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 -
liability to trespassers
Page 2
Learning to read statutory

•
provisions
Challenges to be faced:
•
Learning numbers as opposed to names of cases
•
Learning how to ‘dissect’ elements of each provision – what is
important, what do you need to understand meaning of, and why?
•
When case law helps you to interpret meanings
Revill v Newbery
[1996]
•
Mr Newbery 76 year old man who suffered
frequent break ins to his shed on his
allotment. Slept in shed with a shotgun.
•
Mr Revill tried to break in and Newbery shot
through a hole in his shed. It hit Revill in the
arm and chest.
•
Liable in civil action but damages reduced by
2/3 due to contributory negligence
•
However claim successful under ordinary
negligence rather than occupiers liability.
•
The fact that he was an occupier was not
3. The 1957 Act
1957 Act S.1(1) provides that

the Act is designed to:
….regulate the duty which an

occupier of premises owes to his
visitors in respect of dangers due
the state of the premises or to
things done or omitted to be done
on them
Page 3
3. Who is an occupier?
•
The 1957 Act gives no definition so it is
necessary to examine the common law -
the appropriate test is:
•
Occupational Control Test
•
Where a person has a sufficient degree of
control over the premises then they will
owe a duty of care to those lawfully on the
premises.
Page 4
CASE LAW
Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd

[1966] AC 522
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation

[1972] 1 All ER 341
Page 5
4. Who is a visitor?
S.1(2) visitors are said to be
...The persons who would at common law be

treated as... invitees or licensees
There are a number of ways in which a person can

be a visitor for the purposes of the 1957 Act:
•
Express Permission
•
Operation of Law
•
Implied Permission
Page 6
Express
permission
•
Guests, customers
etc
•
Permission can be
withdrawn
•
Must give
reasonable time to
leave property
Operation of Law
•
S2(6) right
conferred by law
•
With or without
permission
•
Police, firefighters,
paramedics etc
Implied Permission
•
Permission can be
implied by
circumstance or
conduct
•
Door-to-door sales
persons, delivery
personnel, people
taking metre
readings etc
•
Will legally be
classed as visitors
Not Included
•
Rights of way
•
A person using a public right of way (e.g
walking down the street) not considered
visitor
•
McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing
Executive
•
Would create impossible burn on
landowner to maintain
Walkers/Ramblers
•
Countryside and Rights of
Way Act 2000 provides a
general right to walk over
open land which falls under
the description of ‘mountain,
moor, heath or down’
•
Right to roam
•
Not classed as visitors for
purposes of occupiers
liability, but are covered
What do they need to
• occupy?
Must occupy premises
•
‘’Premises’ defined in s(1)3 of
1957 Act
•
Land, buildings, any ‘fixed or
moveable structure’, vessel,
vehicle or aircraft
EXTENT OF PERMISSION
•
If permission is abused then this may
amount to a trespass.
•
It is also possible to be a visitor for some
purposes but not for others (see The
Calgarth (1927)
•
Scrutton LJ: ‘When you invite a
person into your house to use the
staircase, you do not invite him to
slide down the bannisters, you invite
him to use the staircase in the
ordinary way.’
•
Anderson v. Coutts [1984] 58 JP
369 – fell off cliff after climbing
over railings despite warnings.
6. Nature of duty
S.2(2) The 1957 Act imposes a “common

duty of care” upon occupiers “
...to take such care as in all the

circumstances of the case is reasonable to see
that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using
the premises for which he is invited or
permitted by the occupier to be there.
This means that the visitors must be made

safe not the premises.
Page 8
NATURE OF DUTY
•
Defendants not required to
provide absolute safety, but to
take reasonable care.
•
One way of taking reasonable
safety precautions is to
provide warnings.
•
Darby v National Trust –
dies from drowning in pond,
claimed should have had
warning signs. Courts held
that it was an obvious risk.
7. Type of visitor
The duty and standard of care may vary

according to the type of visitor….
Page 9
7. Type of visitor: children
S.2(3)(a) of the 1957 Act provides that
an occupier must be prepared for children

to be less careful than adults.
•
Children may not be able to appreciate
danger and they are also naturally
curious.
Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor

[1922] 1 AC 44
Page 10
7. Children – case law
Jolley v Sutton LBC

[2000] 1 WLR 1082
Phipps v. Rochester Corporation

[1955] 1 QB 450
Page 11
7. Type of visitor: skilled visitor
S.2(3)(b) of the 1957 Act provides
an occupier may expect that a person, in

the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and
guard against any special risks ordinarily
incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him
free to do so.
Roles v. Natham [1963] 3 All ER 961
Page 12
But…
•
Ogwo v Taylor – Defendant
negligently set fire to house,
claimant was firefighter who
was injured.
•
The blaze was such that no
amount of care by the
claimant could have protected
him and so defendant was
held liable
8. Impact of warnings
S.2(4)(a) of the 1957 Act provides that

where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of
which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning
is not to be treated without more as absolving the
occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it
was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe.
Page 13
8. Impact of warnings
S.2(5) provides
The common duty of care

does not impose on any
occupier any obligation to a
visitor in respect of risks willingly
accepted as his by the visitor.
Page 14
8. Independent contractors
S.2(4)(b) 1957 Act provides that the
general rule is that occupiers will not be
liable for the negligence of independent
contractors.
Haseldine v. CA Daw & Son

[1941] 2 KB 343
Woodward v. Mayor of Hastings

[1945] KB 174
Page 15
Defences
•
Contributory Negligence
•
Volenti
•
Warnings under S2(4)(a)
•
Exclusion clauses – but not for death or
personal injury
consolidation
Page 16
Preparation
Preparation for next week
ü
Read through the lecture handout for
this session
ü
Access the worksheet for the
Workshop and complete the pre-
workshop preparation tasks
ü
Make sure you come to the
Workshop prepared!
ü
Access the presentation slides for next
week’s large group session
Page 17

Sem2 - L1 - Occupiers Liability 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sem2 - L1 - Occupiers Liability 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tort Law & Civil Remedies

Tort Law & Civil Remedies

© Staffordshire University Law School 2017

Occupiers’ Liability is concerned

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 -

Learning to read statutory

1957 Act S.1(1) provides that

….regulate the duty which an

Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd

Harris v Birkenhead Corporation

S.1(2) visitors are said to be

...The persons who would at common law be

There are a number of ways in which a person can

S.2(2) The 1957 Act imposes a “common

...to take such care as in all the

This means that the visitors must be made

The duty and standard of care may vary

S.2(3)(a) of the 1957 Act provides that

an occupier must be prepared for children

Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor

Jolley v Sutton LBC

Phipps v. Rochester Corporation

S.2(3)(b) of the 1957 Act provides

an occupier may expect that a person, in

S.2(4)(a) of the 1957 Act provides that

The common duty of care

Haseldine v. CA Daw & Son

Woodward v. Mayor of Hastings

You might also like