Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 & 1984

Statute which est. that an occupier of premises owes a DOC to LAWFUL visitors

Compensation

- The Harris case 1976 established that the occupier is 'the party in control of the premises', which can be more than one person (Wheat v Lacon)
- There is no statutory definition for 'occupier', and the definition has been developed through the common law

s.1(3) of the OLA 1957 says that premises are "any fixed or moveable structure, including vessels and vehicles"

- The OLA 1957 decided that lawful visitors are anyone with permission to be on the premises
- permission can be EXPRESS or IMPLIED

Express = someone who has been invited, or someone who has contractual permission (e.g a ticket to be there)

Implied = they make repeated visits (Lowry v Walker), have statutory authority to be there (e.g police or energy companies) or have been given entry to communicate (e.g through a door)

S.2 of the OLA 1957 says that the occupier must ensure that the lawful visitors "will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes they were invited/permitted to be there"

- s.2(3)(a) of the OLA 1957 says that occupiers "must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults, and the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age"
- for children, the standard of care is measured subjectively and changes according to their age - the younger they are, the greater the care that the occupier must take
- Glasgow Corp v Taylor = said that "allurements" on the premises could attract children + cause injury
- NOTE = add case which says that it is reasonable for occupiers to expect parents to supervise young children

s2(3)(b) OLA 1957 says that an occupier can expect tradesmen to "guard against risks specific to their trade"

- s.2(4) OLA 1957 says that an occupier can pass liability on to an independent contractor (e.g if a hired electrician injures a visitor) if:
a) it was reasonable to employ an independent contractor
B) The occupier checked they are competent and insured
C) the occupier checked that their work was done to a good standard

- tradesmen = used if the scenario is about the WORKER being INJURED
- independent contractor = used if the scenario is about the worker/the thing they worked on INJURING OTHER VISITORS

NEW statute that extends the reach of the 1957 Act to include duty of care to TRESPASSERS.

when they don't have permission to be on the premises, have gone beyond their permission, or have stayed on the premises longer than for the permission they had

- they can only be held liable for PERSONAL INJURY - trespassers cannot claim for property damage
- this is described in the 1984 act (don't quote)

- s1(3) says that an occupier is liable if:
a) O knows/has reasonable grounds to know ABOUT THE DANGER
b) O knows/has reasonable grounds to know THE PERSON IS IN THE VICINITY OF DANGER
C) O may reasonably be expected to protect the other person against the risk

s1(4) = O's duty is to "take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that [the trespasser] is not injured by reason of the danger"

O is not liable if the unlawful visitor is injured by an OBVIOUS DANGER

TIME OF DAY/YEAR is relevant to whether O owes a DOC

- No duty of care is owed if the injry is NOT due to the state of the premises but the ACTIONS OF THE CLAIMANT
- Trespassers have to take some responsibility for their actions

No duty of care is owed if O has no reason to SUSPECT THE PRESENCE OF A TRESPASSER

Duty of care does not extend to checking for HIDDEN DANGERS

O does not owe a duty of care to CHILD trespassers if the injury is not due to the state of the premises but because of THEIR OWN ACTIONS

OUTSIDE OF STATUTE:
- Contributory negligence = Sayers v Harlem
- Consent (volenti) = Ogwo v Taylor

IN STATUTE:
- Exclusion clauses = s.2(1)
- Warning signs = s.2(4)

- If consent is successfully argued, D will not be liable and will pay NO damages
- D must prove that C had:
A) knowledge of the PRECISE risk
B) exercised free choice
C) voluntarily accepted the risk (people doing their job arent acting voluntarily, as in Ogwo v Taylor)

- Occupier will argue that C is partly to blame for the injuries
- If this is proven, the compensation amount will be reduced

- If there is a warning of a danger, this can be a complete defence for an occupier
- warnings can be oral or written
- The warning must be effective, which s.2(4) says means "it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe"

- this means that a RESIDENTIAL occupier is able to limit or exclude completely their liability for any injury caused to a visitor, THROUGH A WRITTEN OR ORAL WARNING (diff to warning signs defence, because it is not a SIGN)
- However, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says that traders cannot "exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence", and so the defence can't be used in this case. (E.g in a shop)