TORT:

OCCUPIERS’
LIABILITY
 OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY
BAC KGROUND INFORMATION

• This is when the owner/person who lives in the property is

responsible for damage or injuries suffered by someone who
comes to their property.

• The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (visitors)

• The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (trespassers)

 THE OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957

• This concerns the duty that is owed to people who are

legitimately visiting the property, whether they have been invited
or not.
WHO IS AN “OCCUPIER”?

• S. 1(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 states that the act does
not define ‘occupier’ and so we use rules from common law (case
law).

• The key thing is to look at who has control over the premises ...
 WHEAT V LACON & CO

There are 4 types of occupier:

1. If a landlord rents out the

premises, the tenant is the
occupier.

2. If the landlord retains control

over certain areas then they
are the occupier of those
areas.
 WHEAT V LACON & CO

3. If an owner allows a person

to use the premises but
reserves the right of entry, the
owner is the occupier.

4. If contractors are employed

to work there, usually the owner
i s t h e o c c u p i e r, a l t h o u g h
sometimes the contractor might
be classed as the occupier.
 WHO IS THE OCCUPIER?

Donald owns a pub and employs Leon to run

the pub as the licensee. Leon also lives in the
pub. Leon knows that Donald has retained
the right to enter the pub whenever he likes.

Who is the occupier? Donald or Leon?

 WHO IS THE OCCUPIER?

Mary lives in a very large house and is very,

very lonely. She decides to rent the upstairs
of her house to Percival. Mary continues to
live on the lower floor of her house whilst
secretly hoping that Percival will fall in love
with her.

Who is the occupier? Of Mary’s house?

Mary or Percival?
 WHO IS THE OCCUPIER?

Chris left his wife. He rented a flat

from a nice man who had a nice flat for
rent. Chris lived in the rented flat.
Happily. Ever. After

Who is the occupier? Chris or the nice

man?
WHO IS A “ VISITOR”?

• This is someone who has express or implied permission to enter

the property. ‘Property’ and ‘premises’ are not limited to
buildings. It can also include outdoor areas such as a garden or
driveway.

• It could be someone who was invited onto the property or

someone who has not been invited specifically but it is implied
that they are allowed to be there. An example would be a
postman delivering letters and walking up the garden path.
THE COMMON DUT Y OF C ARE

• S. 2 of the 1957 Act outlines the duty owed by occupiers to

visitors:

• An occupier owes the same duty to all visitors but this can differ
depending on circumstances.

• The duty is to take reasonable care to make sure that visitors are
reasonably safe when using/entering the premises for the purpose
for which they have been invited.
• If children are visiting, the occupier must be prepared for them to be
less careful that adults - s. 2(3)(a). So, more care must be taken by
occupiers when the visitors are children.

• The occupier can expect a person to appreciate and guard against any
special risks - s. 2(3)(b). So, if a person is present to perform a
particular role/task, with a particular risk attached to it, an occupier
can assume that visitor will take care.

• A warning can discharge the duty of care - s. 2(4)(a)

• The occupier is not liable for the actions of an independent contractor

if the occupier acted reasonably in employing them and took care to
ensure that they were competent - s. 2(4)(b)
 THE OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984

• This concerns the duty that is owed to people who are not
legitimately visiting the property, otherwise known as trespassers
or unlawful visitors.
WHO IS AN “OCCUPIER”?

• This has the same definition as in the 1957 Act.

TRESPASSERS

• In the past, the law was very harsh towards unlawful visitors.

• In Addie v Dumbreck (1929) the court held there was no duty

towards trespassers, except a duty not to deliberately harm them.

• In the 1970s the courts became more lenient.

• British Railways Board v Herrington (1972) - The HL said that a

duty was owed to trespassers. This case led to the 1984 Act.
THE S TATUTORY DUT Y OF C ARE TO TRESPASSERS

• Section 1(3) of the 1984 Act says that a duty is owed if:

• The occupier knows about the danger or has reasonable

grounds (a good reason) to think it exists.

• The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that

the trespasser is near the danger or might come close to it.

• The risk is one which we could reasonably expect the occupier

to protect a trespasser against.

• Section 1(4) says that the occupier has a duty to take reasonable
care to ensure that the trespasser is not injured by that danger.
TOMLINSON V CONGLETON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2003)
DOES THE C SUCCEED IN HIS CL AIM?

• C is a visitor when he arrives.

• Becomes a trespasser when he

enters the water. He was aware
that he wasn’t allowed in the lake.

• Is there a duty?

• Council was aware of the danger.

They had warning signs ... and
even introduced security controls.

• HL dismissed C’s claim. Why?

• The council had taken reasonable

care to ensure that the trespasser
was not injured by the danger.
TOMLINSON V CONGLETON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2003)

• Lord Hoffman stated:

• In The Occupiers’ Liability

Act 1957 a duty of care is
owed to ALL visitors.

• In The Occupiers’ Liability

Act 1984 a duty of care is
owed to trespassers if
certain criteria are met - s.
1(3)