Thanyha Kirisanker
Unit 7 Aspects of Tort
Occupiers Liability
P4 M3 D2
Occupiers Liability
The Occupiers liability is the area of law which deals with this duty of care, anyone
who owns or rents a property that people can visit. An occupier to all visitors to
ensure the premises are reasonably safe. The premises must be dangerous before
the occupier can be held liable. Otherwise, it could open floodgates to numerous
claims. Ending up with occupiers being very responsible. 1 In s1(2) occupier is the
person in occupation and control over the premises as per the case Wheat v Lacon
& Co Ltd.
In the case of Wheat v Lacon, the claimant and her family stayed at a public house,
The Golfer’s Arms in Great Yarmouth, for a holiday. Unfortunately, her husband died
when he fell down the stairs and hit his head. The stairs were steep and narrow. The
handrail stopped two steps from the bottom of the stairs and there was no bulb in the
light. The claimant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 against
the Brewery company, Lacon, which owned the freehold of The Golfer’s Arms and
against the Managers of the Pub, Mr & Mrs Richardson, who occupied the pub as a
licensee. It was held in this case that Both the Richardson’s and Lacon were
occupiers for the purposes of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and therefore both
owed the common duty of care. It is possible to have more than one occupier. The
question of whether a particular person is an occupier under the Act is whether they
have occupational control. Lacon had only granted a license to the Richardson’s and
had retained the right to repair which gave them a sufficient degree of control. There
is no requirement of physical occupation. However, it was found that Lacon was not
in breach of duty since the provision of light bulbs would have been part of the day-
to-day management duties of the Richardson’s. Since the Richardson’s were no
party to the appeal the claimant’s action failed. 2
Another case is Harris v Birkenhead Corporation in this case, the claimant Julie
Harris was 4 years old when she wandered off from a children’s play park with her
friend. They entered a derelict house which was due for demolition. The house had
not been secured and the door was open. They went upstairs and Julie sustained
serious injury when she fell from a window. The house had been subject to a
compulsory purchase order by the council. The house had been owned by a private
landlord and the tenant was offered alternative accommodation by the council. The
tenant informed the council that she did not want to take up the offer of
accommodation and made her own arrangements and left the property. The council
served 14 days’ notice on the owner of their intention to take possession of the
property, but never actually took physical possession at the expiry of the 14 days. It
1
https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-may-aug-2018/what-is-occupiers-liability/
2
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Wheat-v-Lacon.php
, Thanyha Kirisanker
Unit 7 Aspects of Tort
Occupiers Liability
P4 M3 D2
was held in this case that the Council had the legal right to take possession to
secure the property, actual physical occupation was not required to incur liability as
an occupier. The council were therefore liable. In this case, As Patrick is the owner
of the house and grounds, and therefore in control of the premises, it is likely that
Patrick would be the occupier.
According to the Occupiers liability Act section 3a premises is defined as any fixed or
moveable structure, this includes any vessels, vehicle, or aircraft. This has been held
to include ships in dry dock, lifts, and ladders. In this case, the house and grounds as
fixed structures are likely to qualify as premises.
Under the Occupiers Liability Act 2957 persons who have a right to enter premises
conferred by law are lawful visitors. To qualify as a lawful visitor is anyone on the
premises by the occupier’s invitation (Stone v Taffe), with the occupiers expressed or
implied permission in the exercise of legal right. In the case of Stone v Taffe, A pub
manager had been instructed not to let friends remain on the premises after closing
time except for a bona fide private party notified in advance to the brewery and the
police. He ignored his instruction, and a guest fell on unlit stairs. The brewery was
held liable as the guest was a lawful visitor, since he did not know of the prohibition
and believed he was on the premises by invitation. In this case, Rodrigo appears to
be a lawful visitor as Patrick has paid him to replace windows. Sarah and Louis
appear to be lawful visitors as they are using the play area which is open to the
public.
An adult visitor is owed the common duty of care which is under S.2 (2) The common
duty of care is 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 the purposes
for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier o be there 3. In the case of
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002), there was a wet mopped floor with
a sign up, but the customer slipped and broke their leg. The Legal principle in this
case is that they were not liable as they did everything for mopping that is
reasonable. A customer’s safety is not guaranteed, and they should take care for
their own safety. In the case of Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
(2016), the claimant tripped on a bit of concrete on the grounds of the cathedral. The
legal principle in this case is that tripping, slipping, and falling are everyday events
that would open the floodgates to wide to all manner of cases that the defendant was
not liable. The concrete was not over and above the risk of injury which are on any
path.
Limited duty is only owed in respect of the purpose for which visitors is permitted to
be on the premises. Entrant who exceeds scope of occupier’s permission become
3
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Occupiers-liability.php
Unit 7 Aspects of Tort
Occupiers Liability
P4 M3 D2
Occupiers Liability
The Occupiers liability is the area of law which deals with this duty of care, anyone
who owns or rents a property that people can visit. An occupier to all visitors to
ensure the premises are reasonably safe. The premises must be dangerous before
the occupier can be held liable. Otherwise, it could open floodgates to numerous
claims. Ending up with occupiers being very responsible. 1 In s1(2) occupier is the
person in occupation and control over the premises as per the case Wheat v Lacon
& Co Ltd.
In the case of Wheat v Lacon, the claimant and her family stayed at a public house,
The Golfer’s Arms in Great Yarmouth, for a holiday. Unfortunately, her husband died
when he fell down the stairs and hit his head. The stairs were steep and narrow. The
handrail stopped two steps from the bottom of the stairs and there was no bulb in the
light. The claimant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 against
the Brewery company, Lacon, which owned the freehold of The Golfer’s Arms and
against the Managers of the Pub, Mr & Mrs Richardson, who occupied the pub as a
licensee. It was held in this case that Both the Richardson’s and Lacon were
occupiers for the purposes of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and therefore both
owed the common duty of care. It is possible to have more than one occupier. The
question of whether a particular person is an occupier under the Act is whether they
have occupational control. Lacon had only granted a license to the Richardson’s and
had retained the right to repair which gave them a sufficient degree of control. There
is no requirement of physical occupation. However, it was found that Lacon was not
in breach of duty since the provision of light bulbs would have been part of the day-
to-day management duties of the Richardson’s. Since the Richardson’s were no
party to the appeal the claimant’s action failed. 2
Another case is Harris v Birkenhead Corporation in this case, the claimant Julie
Harris was 4 years old when she wandered off from a children’s play park with her
friend. They entered a derelict house which was due for demolition. The house had
not been secured and the door was open. They went upstairs and Julie sustained
serious injury when she fell from a window. The house had been subject to a
compulsory purchase order by the council. The house had been owned by a private
landlord and the tenant was offered alternative accommodation by the council. The
tenant informed the council that she did not want to take up the offer of
accommodation and made her own arrangements and left the property. The council
served 14 days’ notice on the owner of their intention to take possession of the
property, but never actually took physical possession at the expiry of the 14 days. It
1
https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-may-aug-2018/what-is-occupiers-liability/
2
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Wheat-v-Lacon.php
, Thanyha Kirisanker
Unit 7 Aspects of Tort
Occupiers Liability
P4 M3 D2
was held in this case that the Council had the legal right to take possession to
secure the property, actual physical occupation was not required to incur liability as
an occupier. The council were therefore liable. In this case, As Patrick is the owner
of the house and grounds, and therefore in control of the premises, it is likely that
Patrick would be the occupier.
According to the Occupiers liability Act section 3a premises is defined as any fixed or
moveable structure, this includes any vessels, vehicle, or aircraft. This has been held
to include ships in dry dock, lifts, and ladders. In this case, the house and grounds as
fixed structures are likely to qualify as premises.
Under the Occupiers Liability Act 2957 persons who have a right to enter premises
conferred by law are lawful visitors. To qualify as a lawful visitor is anyone on the
premises by the occupier’s invitation (Stone v Taffe), with the occupiers expressed or
implied permission in the exercise of legal right. In the case of Stone v Taffe, A pub
manager had been instructed not to let friends remain on the premises after closing
time except for a bona fide private party notified in advance to the brewery and the
police. He ignored his instruction, and a guest fell on unlit stairs. The brewery was
held liable as the guest was a lawful visitor, since he did not know of the prohibition
and believed he was on the premises by invitation. In this case, Rodrigo appears to
be a lawful visitor as Patrick has paid him to replace windows. Sarah and Louis
appear to be lawful visitors as they are using the play area which is open to the
public.
An adult visitor is owed the common duty of care which is under S.2 (2) The common
duty of care is 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 the purposes
for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier o be there 3. In the case of
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002), there was a wet mopped floor with
a sign up, but the customer slipped and broke their leg. The Legal principle in this
case is that they were not liable as they did everything for mopping that is
reasonable. A customer’s safety is not guaranteed, and they should take care for
their own safety. In the case of Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
(2016), the claimant tripped on a bit of concrete on the grounds of the cathedral. The
legal principle in this case is that tripping, slipping, and falling are everyday events
that would open the floodgates to wide to all manner of cases that the defendant was
not liable. The concrete was not over and above the risk of injury which are on any
path.
Limited duty is only owed in respect of the purpose for which visitors is permitted to
be on the premises. Entrant who exceeds scope of occupier’s permission become
3
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Occupiers-liability.php
