Occupier’s Liability Act
Answer Structure (with all the relevant laws)
Summary of Facts:
Layton School has hosted an annual musical where they have specially ordered a revolving stage from
Design All Ltd. On the event day, certain partioes namely M, J and C and suffered from physical injuries
due to the state of affairs of the premises. Since the ijuries are due to the tstate of affairs of the school
premises, the parties can seek compensation under a tort law of negligence. However, to establish a claim
succesfully, the parties will have to prove that the school owed them a duty of care which they breach and
such breach cuased the harm which was forseeable.
In order to prove that the school owed the parties a duty of care, reliance will be placed on the Occupiers
Liability Act 1957/84. In order to determine which act would applythe first aspect which we need to solve
is that whether the parties would be considered as visitors or tresspassers since OLA 1957 regyulates the
duty of care principles for visitors and OLA 1984 regulates the duty of care for tresspassers. For visitor is
any one who has express, implied, or permission by law to enter premises whereas a trespasser is anyone
who is not permitted or exceeds their permission. We note that J and C were clearly permitted to be on
the premises and will be visitors but M although a student exceeded his permission when he entered the
area which sttated “do not enter” and therefore will be considered as a trespasser. We shall discuss a claim
separately for J, C and M.
J and C:
Since J and C are visitors, OLA 1957 will apply and we need to determine under section 1(2) of OLA
1957 and section 1(3) as to who will be considered as an occupier and the area in which both parties were
injured i.e the stage and the area near the door will be considered as premises. An occupier is anyone who
controls tyhe premises at the time of injuries and premises is widely defined as any fixed or moveable
structure including vehicles and vessels. Clearly, the school has control pf the premises, including the
stage and the area near the floor and such places are movable (stage) or fixed (area near the door) theerby
falling within the definition of premises.
Persuant to 2(1) and 2(2) of OLA 1957 an occupier of land i.e the school in our case directly owes a duty
of care to their visitors i.e. J and C and the content of the duty is to ensure that the visitors are reasoanbly
safe for the purpose of their visit. The purpose of J’s visit wa sto act in the annual musical whereas C was
employed by the school to check maintenance and repairs. Therefore, a DOC will be established however
the occupier can raise the folowing arguments to discharge their duty of care:
(i) relying on sec 2(4)(b) of OLA 1957, the school can argue that they had hired Design ltd as an
independant contractor to make the revolving stage and if they were negligent a sepaarate claim should be
made against them and the duty under OLA should be discharged. We note that the duty will only be
discharged if the work was such that the independant contractor had to be hired, the occupier hired the
contractor with reasonable skill and cae and if the work was non techincal, occupier even supervised the
work and checked it properly. In our case, a revolving stage has to be outsourced and the facts state that
design limited had a good reputation, the work itself was technical though evenn if the school had not
Answer Structure (with all the relevant laws)
Summary of Facts:
Layton School has hosted an annual musical where they have specially ordered a revolving stage from
Design All Ltd. On the event day, certain partioes namely M, J and C and suffered from physical injuries
due to the state of affairs of the premises. Since the ijuries are due to the tstate of affairs of the school
premises, the parties can seek compensation under a tort law of negligence. However, to establish a claim
succesfully, the parties will have to prove that the school owed them a duty of care which they breach and
such breach cuased the harm which was forseeable.
In order to prove that the school owed the parties a duty of care, reliance will be placed on the Occupiers
Liability Act 1957/84. In order to determine which act would applythe first aspect which we need to solve
is that whether the parties would be considered as visitors or tresspassers since OLA 1957 regyulates the
duty of care principles for visitors and OLA 1984 regulates the duty of care for tresspassers. For visitor is
any one who has express, implied, or permission by law to enter premises whereas a trespasser is anyone
who is not permitted or exceeds their permission. We note that J and C were clearly permitted to be on
the premises and will be visitors but M although a student exceeded his permission when he entered the
area which sttated “do not enter” and therefore will be considered as a trespasser. We shall discuss a claim
separately for J, C and M.
J and C:
Since J and C are visitors, OLA 1957 will apply and we need to determine under section 1(2) of OLA
1957 and section 1(3) as to who will be considered as an occupier and the area in which both parties were
injured i.e the stage and the area near the door will be considered as premises. An occupier is anyone who
controls tyhe premises at the time of injuries and premises is widely defined as any fixed or moveable
structure including vehicles and vessels. Clearly, the school has control pf the premises, including the
stage and the area near the floor and such places are movable (stage) or fixed (area near the door) theerby
falling within the definition of premises.
Persuant to 2(1) and 2(2) of OLA 1957 an occupier of land i.e the school in our case directly owes a duty
of care to their visitors i.e. J and C and the content of the duty is to ensure that the visitors are reasoanbly
safe for the purpose of their visit. The purpose of J’s visit wa sto act in the annual musical whereas C was
employed by the school to check maintenance and repairs. Therefore, a DOC will be established however
the occupier can raise the folowing arguments to discharge their duty of care:
(i) relying on sec 2(4)(b) of OLA 1957, the school can argue that they had hired Design ltd as an
independant contractor to make the revolving stage and if they were negligent a sepaarate claim should be
made against them and the duty under OLA should be discharged. We note that the duty will only be
discharged if the work was such that the independant contractor had to be hired, the occupier hired the
contractor with reasonable skill and cae and if the work was non techincal, occupier even supervised the
work and checked it properly. In our case, a revolving stage has to be outsourced and the facts state that
design limited had a good reputation, the work itself was technical though evenn if the school had not
