Discuss whether the occupiers liability acts create justice for the occupier
and the claimant (20 marks)
Occupiers liability is a tort which imposes a duty on people who have land to make it
safe for people who come onto it. An occupier is defined under common law as the
person with some “degree of control” over the premises. Wheat v Lacon, where both
managers and employees were occupiers, tells us that there may be more than one
occupier at the same time if they both have some degree of control over the
premises. Furthermore, bailey v armes tells us that the courts may sometimes find
that no one is in control of the premises so there’s no occupier. There is no statutory
definition of premises but the OL act 1957 States that this term includes land and
buildings as well as any fixed/ moveable structures including vehicles and vessels.
The occupiers liability act 1957 tells us that an occupier owes a duty of care to lawful
visitors and that if that duty is breached, the remedy to be claimed is damages for
personal injury or for any property damaged. A lawful visitors is someone who has
permission to be there and this can be expressed permission but also implied. S2 (2)
of the Act tells us that the common duty of care owed to lawful visitors means the
occupier must take reasonably safe for the purpose of their visit. Laverton v kiapasha
takeaway supreme, where the shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure their
customers were safe by fitting slip resistant tiles, tells us that the occupier doesn't
have to make the visitor completely safe- only reasonably safe. An additional duty of
care is owed to child by occupier so they must guard against any kind of “allurement”
or attraction which places a child visitor at risk of harm as seen in Glasgow
corporation v Taylor where a child ate poisonous berries from a shrub in a public park
which hadn’t been fenced off so the council were liable as they were aware of danger
and berries amounted to an allurement to young children. Occupier will owe a
tradesman coming onto premises the common duty of care but occupier won't be
liable where the tradesman fails to guard against risks which they should know about
or be expected to know about due to their trade as illustrated by roles v Nathan where
2 chimney sweeps died after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes but occupier weren’t
liable as they should've been aware of the fumes as a particular danger. Occupier is
able to pass a claim to a workman if the visitor was injured by their negligent work but
3 requirements mist be met first s2(4). It must have been reasonable for the occupier
to give work to an independent contractor as illustrated in haseldine v daw where the
occupier wasn’t liable for the negligent repair as the work was a highly specialised
activity. The contractor hired myst be competent to carry out the task as
demonstrated by bottomley v todmorden where the club hired a stunt team with no
insurance so the club was liable. Also, the occupier must check that the work has
been done properly as seen in Woodward v mayor of Hastings where the occupiers
hadn’t inspected so they were liable.
Occupiers liability act 1984 covers trespassers or lawful visitors who have gone
beyond their permission to be on the premises. If occupier is liable, the trespasser can
only claim for damages for personal injury. Under S1(3) of the act, the occupier will
owe a duty to the trespasser if they are aware of the danger, know trespassers come
in the vicinity of the danger and risk is one occupier is Reasonably expected to offer
some protection for. If this criteria is met then under S1(4) of the act, occupiers have
a duty to “take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see trespasser isn’t
injured by reason of the danger”. However, the occupier won't be liable if the
trespasser is injured by an obvious danger as illustrated by ratcliff v McConnell where
the occupier wasn’t liable when C hit his head on the bottom of the pool as there was
and the claimant (20 marks)
Occupiers liability is a tort which imposes a duty on people who have land to make it
safe for people who come onto it. An occupier is defined under common law as the
person with some “degree of control” over the premises. Wheat v Lacon, where both
managers and employees were occupiers, tells us that there may be more than one
occupier at the same time if they both have some degree of control over the
premises. Furthermore, bailey v armes tells us that the courts may sometimes find
that no one is in control of the premises so there’s no occupier. There is no statutory
definition of premises but the OL act 1957 States that this term includes land and
buildings as well as any fixed/ moveable structures including vehicles and vessels.
The occupiers liability act 1957 tells us that an occupier owes a duty of care to lawful
visitors and that if that duty is breached, the remedy to be claimed is damages for
personal injury or for any property damaged. A lawful visitors is someone who has
permission to be there and this can be expressed permission but also implied. S2 (2)
of the Act tells us that the common duty of care owed to lawful visitors means the
occupier must take reasonably safe for the purpose of their visit. Laverton v kiapasha
takeaway supreme, where the shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure their
customers were safe by fitting slip resistant tiles, tells us that the occupier doesn't
have to make the visitor completely safe- only reasonably safe. An additional duty of
care is owed to child by occupier so they must guard against any kind of “allurement”
or attraction which places a child visitor at risk of harm as seen in Glasgow
corporation v Taylor where a child ate poisonous berries from a shrub in a public park
which hadn’t been fenced off so the council were liable as they were aware of danger
and berries amounted to an allurement to young children. Occupier will owe a
tradesman coming onto premises the common duty of care but occupier won't be
liable where the tradesman fails to guard against risks which they should know about
or be expected to know about due to their trade as illustrated by roles v Nathan where
2 chimney sweeps died after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes but occupier weren’t
liable as they should've been aware of the fumes as a particular danger. Occupier is
able to pass a claim to a workman if the visitor was injured by their negligent work but
3 requirements mist be met first s2(4). It must have been reasonable for the occupier
to give work to an independent contractor as illustrated in haseldine v daw where the
occupier wasn’t liable for the negligent repair as the work was a highly specialised
activity. The contractor hired myst be competent to carry out the task as
demonstrated by bottomley v todmorden where the club hired a stunt team with no
insurance so the club was liable. Also, the occupier must check that the work has
been done properly as seen in Woodward v mayor of Hastings where the occupiers
hadn’t inspected so they were liable.
Occupiers liability act 1984 covers trespassers or lawful visitors who have gone
beyond their permission to be on the premises. If occupier is liable, the trespasser can
only claim for damages for personal injury. Under S1(3) of the act, the occupier will
owe a duty to the trespasser if they are aware of the danger, know trespassers come
in the vicinity of the danger and risk is one occupier is Reasonably expected to offer
some protection for. If this criteria is met then under S1(4) of the act, occupiers have
a duty to “take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see trespasser isn’t
injured by reason of the danger”. However, the occupier won't be liable if the
trespasser is injured by an obvious danger as illustrated by ratcliff v McConnell where
the occupier wasn’t liable when C hit his head on the bottom of the pool as there was
