Occupiers’ Liability
March 20, 2023
1 Occupiers’ Liability
• The topic of occupiers’ liability is governed by two statutes, which replaced
Negligence, namely the Occupiers’ Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984.
• Occupiers liability, then, is a statutory tort.
• The 1957 Act governs an occupier’s duties to ‘visitors,’ and the 1984 Act
governs an occupier’s duties to others (mostly trespassers).
• These two Acts have a limited scope.
• As with the 1957 Act, s 1(1) the 1984 Act relates to risks that are ‘...due
to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on
them.’
• So, if a claimant falls through a broken floorboard in defendant’s house,
this falls under the scope of the Acts.
• However, risks that follow as a result of an activity on the premises do not
fall under the scope of the Acts (see Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239
and Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] 3 All ER 1122.).
• Thus, if the claimant is hit by the defendant’s car as they reverse out of
their garage, this does not fall under the scope of the Acts.
• Where a risk follows due to an activity on the premises, this is the domain
of Negligence.
• That said, activities which are closely connected to the state of the premises
in have sometimes fallen under the scopes of the Acts (see Ogwo v Taylor
[1988] AC 431 ).
• Hence, if the defendant drops a hammer on the defendant which they were
using to repair a hole in their roof, this may fall under the scope of the
Acts.
1
, 2 Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
3 Meaning of ‘Occupier’
• As the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 does not define ‘occupier,’ we need
to turn to case law.
• As established in Wheat v E Lacon Co Ltd [1966] 1 All ER 582 and
Harris v Birkenhead [1976] 1 WLR 279, an occupier is someone who has
a sufficient degree of control over the premises.
• Notice that, given that the test is one of control, someone who is not an
owner of the premises can have sufficient control such that they are an
occupier.
• So, there can be more than one occupier of the same premises.
• Indeed, an independent contractor could constitute an occupier whilst
working on another person’s premises (along with the owner of the premises)
if they have sufficient control over the area wherein they are working.
• The question of whether an independent contractor is an occupier is one
of degree.
4 Meaning of ‘Visitor’
• Under s 1(2), persons who have express or implied permission to be on
the occupier’s land constitute visitors.
• Moreover, persons who enter under the terms of a contract (s 5(1)) and
persons who enter to exercise any right conferred by law constitute visitors
(s 2(6)).
• Notice that a visitor who exceeds their express or implied permission be-
comes a trespasser and thus will potentially fall under the Occupiers’ Li-
ability Act 1984.
5 Meaning of ‘Premises’
• Under s 1(3), the extension of ‘premises’ includes open land as well as
fixed or move-able structures.
• ‘Premises’ also specifically includes vessels, vehicles or aircraft.
2
March 20, 2023
1 Occupiers’ Liability
• The topic of occupiers’ liability is governed by two statutes, which replaced
Negligence, namely the Occupiers’ Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984.
• Occupiers liability, then, is a statutory tort.
• The 1957 Act governs an occupier’s duties to ‘visitors,’ and the 1984 Act
governs an occupier’s duties to others (mostly trespassers).
• These two Acts have a limited scope.
• As with the 1957 Act, s 1(1) the 1984 Act relates to risks that are ‘...due
to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on
them.’
• So, if a claimant falls through a broken floorboard in defendant’s house,
this falls under the scope of the Acts.
• However, risks that follow as a result of an activity on the premises do not
fall under the scope of the Acts (see Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239
and Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] 3 All ER 1122.).
• Thus, if the claimant is hit by the defendant’s car as they reverse out of
their garage, this does not fall under the scope of the Acts.
• Where a risk follows due to an activity on the premises, this is the domain
of Negligence.
• That said, activities which are closely connected to the state of the premises
in have sometimes fallen under the scopes of the Acts (see Ogwo v Taylor
[1988] AC 431 ).
• Hence, if the defendant drops a hammer on the defendant which they were
using to repair a hole in their roof, this may fall under the scope of the
Acts.
1
, 2 Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
3 Meaning of ‘Occupier’
• As the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 does not define ‘occupier,’ we need
to turn to case law.
• As established in Wheat v E Lacon Co Ltd [1966] 1 All ER 582 and
Harris v Birkenhead [1976] 1 WLR 279, an occupier is someone who has
a sufficient degree of control over the premises.
• Notice that, given that the test is one of control, someone who is not an
owner of the premises can have sufficient control such that they are an
occupier.
• So, there can be more than one occupier of the same premises.
• Indeed, an independent contractor could constitute an occupier whilst
working on another person’s premises (along with the owner of the premises)
if they have sufficient control over the area wherein they are working.
• The question of whether an independent contractor is an occupier is one
of degree.
4 Meaning of ‘Visitor’
• Under s 1(2), persons who have express or implied permission to be on
the occupier’s land constitute visitors.
• Moreover, persons who enter under the terms of a contract (s 5(1)) and
persons who enter to exercise any right conferred by law constitute visitors
(s 2(6)).
• Notice that a visitor who exceeds their express or implied permission be-
comes a trespasser and thus will potentially fall under the Occupiers’ Li-
ability Act 1984.
5 Meaning of ‘Premises’
• Under s 1(3), the extension of ‘premises’ includes open land as well as
fixed or move-able structures.
• ‘Premises’ also specifically includes vessels, vehicles or aircraft.
2
