Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - Key Points

Introduction

• Occupiers Liability: A tort recognizing the responsibility of a person in control of land/property to avoid causing injury to others.
• Governed by two statutes:
  • Occupiers Liability Act 1957: Liability for injury to lawful visitors.
  • Occupiers Liability Act 1984: Liability to trespassers.
• Focus of this lecture: 1957 Act.

Who is an Occupier?

• Section 1(2) of the 1957 Act: Does not define an occupier; refers to common law.
• Common Law (Case: Wheat v. Lacon):
  • Tenants: Occupiers even if they do not own the property.
  • Landlords: Occupiers of parts they access (e.g., communal areas).
  • Owners: Naturally considered occupiers.
  • Independent Contractors: Can be occupiers alongside owners.

What Are Premises?

• Section 1(3)(a): Covers houses, vessels (boats), vehicles, and aircraft.

Who is a Lawful Visitor?

• Common Law:
  • Express Permission: Invited guests; permission can be limited by place, behavior, or time.
  • Implied Permission: Presence assumed unobjectionable (e.g., postman, delivery person).

Standard of Care

• Section 2(2): Occupier must ensure lawful visitors are reasonably safe for their purpose of visit.
• Special Visitors (Section 2(3)):
  • Children: Occupiers must anticipate less care; responsibility lies with accompanying adults.
  • Professional Callers: Expected to guard against job-associated risks.
  • Warnings: Can discharge duty if risks are obvious.
  • Independent Contractors: Not liable if reasonable steps were taken to ensure contractor competence.

Cases on Special Visitors

• Children:
  • Phipps v. Rochester: Responsibility primarily with accompanying adult.
  • Jolley v. Sutton: Prepared for children to engage in unexpected mischief.
• Professional Callers:
  • Roles v. Nathan: No liability for risks ordinarily linked to work (e.g., carbon monoxide for chimney sweeps).
• Warnings:
  • Darby v. National Trust: No duty to warn against obvious risks.
  • Tomlinson v. Congleton: Warnings can discharge duty; victim assumed risk by ignoring warnings.
• Independent Contractors:
  • Haseldine v. Daw: No liability for technical work if reasonable steps taken.
  • Woodward v. Mayor of Hastings: Liability if work is routine and not properly checked.

Defenses

• Warnings: Can mitigate liability if visitor ignores obvious risks.
• Volenti Non Fit Injuria: Consenting to risk negates liability.
• Contributory Negligence: Damages may be reduced if visitor fails to take care.
• Exclusion Clauses (Section 2(1)): Occupier may extend, restrict, or exclude liability.

Summary

• Review of the 1957 Act:
  • Identified who an occupier is.
  • Defined premises covered.
  • Outlined duty of care and its variations.
  • Discussed relevant case law.

Next Steps

• Upcoming tutorial: Occupiers Liability Act 1984 focusing on liability to trespassers.