Obligation to
ensure that their
land in not
hazardous to
others
Governed by statute law as the
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Supplemented by the
Occupiers Liability Act 1984 ,
to include trespassers
Prior to this , the extent of liability owed by an
occupier depend upon the nature of the
relationship with the person injured
Occupiers Liability Act 1957 defined two catargories
Lawful
vistor's ,
protested by
the act
all others , who
were not protected
( most of these are
now protected by
OLA 1984)
Purpose of act is to regulate
the duty which an occupier
of premise owes to his
visitors in respect of
dangers die to the state of
the premise or to things
done or omitted to them
Occupier -
a person
who
exercises
and
element of
control
over
premises
Includes
Physical and
Legal Control
Premises - is wide and covers not
only land and buildings but also '
any fixed or movable structure,
including any vessal, vehicle, or
aircraft : SECTION 1 (3)(a), OLA
1957
Visitors
Express Permission - straightforward
but can be complicated if the visitor
behaves in a way that exceed the extent
of permission given
'When you invite a person into your
house, to use the stairs you do not
give him permission to slide down the
banisters ( The Calgarth [1927] p93
(CIA0
Implied Permission -
problematic as involves
thoses who have not be
prohibited from entering but
not expllictly invited and who
are assumed not to be a
objectionable to the occupier
subject to limitation , which if exceed
render the person a trespasser . this is
likely to include situtations as ' entry to
parts of the property that have no
relation to the purpose of the visit
Harvey v Plymouth City
Council [ 2010] ewca civ
860, [2010] piqr p18
held that any implied permission
to enter must be exercised
properly - The duty to ensure the
land was safe for visitors to
enter is limited to ordinary use of
land
Canworth LJ , implied licence for general
recreational activities cannot in my view, be
stretched to cover any form of activity ,
however reckless
if an occupier knows his land is used
by trespassers but does nothing to
prevent them from entering this may
amount to implied permission to enter
as in Lowery v Walker [1911] ac 10 (hl)
right to enter- law gives rights of
entering to certian categories of
people which the definition of lawful
visitor irrespective of the wishes of
the occupiers - eg . police entering
under warrent
Duty Of Care
OLA 1957 SECTION 2 (2)
common duty of care is to take such
care as in all circumstances of the case
is reasonable to see that the visitor will
be reasonably safe in using the
premises for the purpose for which he is
invited or permitted by the occupier to
be there
although there is similarity within the
standard of care in negligence , there is
also an important distinction as an
occupier is empowered by statute to
determine his liability SECTION 2 (1),
OLA 1957 provides that an occupier
may extent, restrict, modify or exclude
his duty to a visitors by agreement or
otherwise
as the occupier controls the extent of
the permission to enter, a visitor who
acts in contary to this becomes a
trespasser
the duty is to ensure the visitor is not injured whilst on the
premises. this is not the same duty to ensure the premises
are safe, so duty may be satisifed if warning signs are
displayed , dangerous areas cornered off
Occupiers Liability Act 1957 ,
section 2 (4)(a) - when damage is
caused to a visitor by a danger which
he has been warned, the warning is
not treated without more as absolving
the occupier from liability , unless in
circumstances it was enough to
make the visitor safe
situtations which common duty differs i.e children
and skilled visitors
CHILDREN - an occupier must be
prepared for children to be less careful
than an adult SECTION2(3)(A) OLA 1957
implying that a greater care may be
needed to protect then from harm, case
law has sought to balance responsibility
between occupiers and parents
Phipps v Rochester Corp [1955] 1 QB 450 (DC)
court held - defendant was entitled to assume
parents would take primary reponsibility for safety
and control of child , by allowing child to play on a
building sight there was no liability as defendant
not expected to protect agaisnt unforeseeable risk
policy behind decision was that it was not social
desirable for parents to shift burdon of protecting
thier children to landowners
level of care
expected depends
upon nature of risk ,
age of child and
thier awareness.
Skilled Workers - an occupier may expect that a
person in the exercise of his calling will appreciate
and guard against any special risks ordinarily
incident to it : Section 2 (3)(B) OLA 1957
law expects skilled workers who expertise give them greater
awareness of risk than ordinary visitors to take pre cautions to protect
themselves. This does not mean occupiers have no duty towards
skilled workers, it depends on the nature of the risk
Occupiers Liability Act 1987
extended protection of the law to cover, trespassers , people
lawfully exercising private rights of way & visitors to land
covered by SECTION 60 of the NATIONAL PARKS & ACCESS
TO THE COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1949 and the 'RIGHT TO ROAM '
legislation
a trespasser is someone who goes on
the land without invitation of anysort
and whose presence is either unknown,
or if known practicularly objected to :
Robert Addie & sons ( Collieries) Ltd v
Dumbreck (1929) AC 358 (HL)
Duty of Care
section 1 (3) OLA 1984 outlines 3
conditions that must be satisfied
for uty to arise
Occupier must be aware of the danger or
have reasonable grounds to believe it exists
(SUBJECTIVE)
he Knows or has reasonable grounds
to believe a trespasser is in the
vicinity of the danger (SUBJECTIVE)
the risk is one against which , in all circumstances ,
he may reasonably be expected to offer some
protection (OBJECTIVE,based on reasonable
Occupier)