Occupiers Liability Act 1984
British Rail board v Herrington (1972)
- A six-year-old boy was badly burnt when he trespassed into an electrified railway line
through vandalised fencing.
- British rail was aware of the gaps in the fencing and that children played in the area.
- The House of Lords established a duty of ‘common humanity’ which was a limited duty owed
when the occupier knew of the danger, and of the likelihood of the trespass.
- The Law Commission investigated this area of law in their 1975 report entitled ‘Report on
liability for damage or injury to trespassers and related questions of occupier’s liability.’
- As a result, the 1984 Act was passed by Parliament and the duty of common humanity was
replaced by a statutory duty.
Step one – identify the Occupier
- Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd
- Harris v Birkenhead Corporation
- Bailey & Armes
Step two – identify the premises
- S.1(3) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957-
- Revil v Newbury
S1(1)(a)
- A duty applies to people other than lawful visitors (as these are covered by the 1957 Act)
- For ‘injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or
things done or omitted to be done on them.’
These can be broken down into adult and child trespassers.
The occupier will only owe a duty under S1(3) if:
a. They are aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists.
b. They know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the
danger concerned or that they may come into the vicinity of the danger.
c. The risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, they may be expected to
offer the other some protection.
S1(4)
- The duty owed is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to
see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned.
- What we can see from all the legislation is that the occupier owes a duty of care when there
is a greater degree of risk. In these circumstances, the occupier needs to take more
precautions to prevent those risks.
- Statutory law has created a large duty on an occupier that seemingly leaves the door open
for lots of claims. However, common law has restricted when a duty is owed to trespassers.
British Rail board v Herrington (1972)
- A six-year-old boy was badly burnt when he trespassed into an electrified railway line
through vandalised fencing.
- British rail was aware of the gaps in the fencing and that children played in the area.
- The House of Lords established a duty of ‘common humanity’ which was a limited duty owed
when the occupier knew of the danger, and of the likelihood of the trespass.
- The Law Commission investigated this area of law in their 1975 report entitled ‘Report on
liability for damage or injury to trespassers and related questions of occupier’s liability.’
- As a result, the 1984 Act was passed by Parliament and the duty of common humanity was
replaced by a statutory duty.
Step one – identify the Occupier
- Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd
- Harris v Birkenhead Corporation
- Bailey & Armes
Step two – identify the premises
- S.1(3) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957-
- Revil v Newbury
S1(1)(a)
- A duty applies to people other than lawful visitors (as these are covered by the 1957 Act)
- For ‘injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or
things done or omitted to be done on them.’
These can be broken down into adult and child trespassers.
The occupier will only owe a duty under S1(3) if:
a. They are aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists.
b. They know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the
danger concerned or that they may come into the vicinity of the danger.
c. The risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, they may be expected to
offer the other some protection.
S1(4)
- The duty owed is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to
see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned.
- What we can see from all the legislation is that the occupier owes a duty of care when there
is a greater degree of risk. In these circumstances, the occupier needs to take more
precautions to prevent those risks.
- Statutory law has created a large duty on an occupier that seemingly leaves the door open
for lots of claims. However, common law has restricted when a duty is owed to trespassers.
