Occupier’s Liability
• Occupier’s liability – completely manipulated by judiciary to
mould it into an act
• Predates Donoghue v Stevenson – 1867 in the case indemaur v
dames
• Land owners used to be favoured over trespassers – more
protection
• Diff. categories of entrants:
• The categories depended on what benefit was brought to the
owner
• higher the benefit the more of a duty owed.
a) visitor –
o invited by contract (implied) or by occupier or by occupier’s - family
o highest standard of care
o legislation
o must prevent or eliminate existing danger subject to supervision and self-care
o Common duty of care under s3 of act
c) trespasser –
o not a visitor and not a recreational user
d) recreational user
o Same duty as a trespasser
o Usually outdoors
o Someone engaging in recreational activity
o Parking for recreational use does not amount to visitor
o Duty for these is not to intentionally harm or act in reckless disregard
o Warn them of danger
• If premises were in ‘active state’ – then they were seen as a
danger state which creates a stronger duty for the owner
Important to identify a few things:
1) Who’s the occupier
2) Who’s the entrant
, 3) Premises
4) What category of entrant?
Classification/ categories
1) Contractual entry
• Entrant have a contract w/ land owner.
• Here it is the contract you turn to and general negligence
principles applied
• Owner must ensure that premises were safe – entrant can carry
out activity safely
• Duty on owner
2) Non-contractual
• No contract but were invited somehow
• Must confer some form of benefit on owner – implied
• The invite may be concluded by the benefit ^
• Law would also apply a limitation as to where was open
• Scope of limitation extended to where it is reasonable for
invitees to go
O Keefe v Irish Motors Inn
Two men drinking on premises. Plaintiff found at 2am drunk in alley-
way after tripping over danger hazard. He attempted to sue. He was
invited however not into the alleyway. It is accepted that there’s a
duty owed to where its reasonable for them to go but in this case it
wasn’t.
- Changed from a visitor to a trespasser
This is an example of a limitation imposed based on reasonableness
Indermauer v Dames:
, - An invitee carrying out safety for himself is entitled to expect
the occupier to carry out the same measures to prevent harm
from ‘an unusual danger’ < if occupier knows/ought to have
known of it.
This was looking at the danger through the eyes of the occupier.
Rooney v Connelly
Local priest encouraged children of local national school to visit
church. Part was to light candles. 7 year old jumper caught on fire
and suffered serious burns.
A candle doesn’t fall within the unusual danger category for the
ADULT, but the court held that it was to a child.
- Looked at the danger through the eyes of the entrant rather
than the occupier.
This shifted the perspective.
Invitees owed highest duties
3) Licencees
Entitled to occupy premises on permission of owner
Permission can be expressed or implied
Usually implied by occupier’s conduct
- silence constitutes permission if they knew of the occupier’s
presence.
Occupier owes duty to warn/prevent danger or injury from not only
unusual, but concealed dangers of which the licensor KNOWS OF.
Priest > he knows of the danger here.
Child licensee becomes equated with an invitee.
- Favoured child entrants
• Occupier’s liability – completely manipulated by judiciary to
mould it into an act
• Predates Donoghue v Stevenson – 1867 in the case indemaur v
dames
• Land owners used to be favoured over trespassers – more
protection
• Diff. categories of entrants:
• The categories depended on what benefit was brought to the
owner
• higher the benefit the more of a duty owed.
a) visitor –
o invited by contract (implied) or by occupier or by occupier’s - family
o highest standard of care
o legislation
o must prevent or eliminate existing danger subject to supervision and self-care
o Common duty of care under s3 of act
c) trespasser –
o not a visitor and not a recreational user
d) recreational user
o Same duty as a trespasser
o Usually outdoors
o Someone engaging in recreational activity
o Parking for recreational use does not amount to visitor
o Duty for these is not to intentionally harm or act in reckless disregard
o Warn them of danger
• If premises were in ‘active state’ – then they were seen as a
danger state which creates a stronger duty for the owner
Important to identify a few things:
1) Who’s the occupier
2) Who’s the entrant
, 3) Premises
4) What category of entrant?
Classification/ categories
1) Contractual entry
• Entrant have a contract w/ land owner.
• Here it is the contract you turn to and general negligence
principles applied
• Owner must ensure that premises were safe – entrant can carry
out activity safely
• Duty on owner
2) Non-contractual
• No contract but were invited somehow
• Must confer some form of benefit on owner – implied
• The invite may be concluded by the benefit ^
• Law would also apply a limitation as to where was open
• Scope of limitation extended to where it is reasonable for
invitees to go
O Keefe v Irish Motors Inn
Two men drinking on premises. Plaintiff found at 2am drunk in alley-
way after tripping over danger hazard. He attempted to sue. He was
invited however not into the alleyway. It is accepted that there’s a
duty owed to where its reasonable for them to go but in this case it
wasn’t.
- Changed from a visitor to a trespasser
This is an example of a limitation imposed based on reasonableness
Indermauer v Dames:
, - An invitee carrying out safety for himself is entitled to expect
the occupier to carry out the same measures to prevent harm
from ‘an unusual danger’ < if occupier knows/ought to have
known of it.
This was looking at the danger through the eyes of the occupier.
Rooney v Connelly
Local priest encouraged children of local national school to visit
church. Part was to light candles. 7 year old jumper caught on fire
and suffered serious burns.
A candle doesn’t fall within the unusual danger category for the
ADULT, but the court held that it was to a child.
- Looked at the danger through the eyes of the entrant rather
than the occupier.
This shifted the perspective.
Invitees owed highest duties
3) Licencees
Entitled to occupy premises on permission of owner
Permission can be expressed or implied
Usually implied by occupier’s conduct
- silence constitutes permission if they knew of the occupier’s
presence.
Occupier owes duty to warn/prevent danger or injury from not only
unusual, but concealed dangers of which the licensor KNOWS OF.
Priest > he knows of the danger here.
Child licensee becomes equated with an invitee.
- Favoured child entrants
