OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY: LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL VISITORS Cases and Statues
TOPIC 3: OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY – CASES AND STATUTES
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
1. MAJOR STATUTES
| Statute / Section | Rule | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|
| Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 | Governs duty owed by occupiers to lawful visitors. | Use where claimant had permission to enter premises. |
| OLA 1957, s1(2) | Creates a common duty of care towards lawful visitors. | Start lawful visitor answers here. |
| OLA 1957, s1(3)(a) | “Premises” includes fixed and movable structures, including vessels, vehicles and aircraft. | Use when premises are not ordinary land/buildings. |
| OLA 1957, s2(2) | Occupier must take reasonable care to see that the visitor is reasonably safe for the purpose for which they are invited or permitted to be there. | Main duty for lawful visitors. (Legislation.gov.uk) |
| OLA 1957, s2(3)(a) | Occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. | Use for child visitors. |
| OLA 1957, s2(3)(b) | Occupier may expect skilled visitors to guard against risks ordinarily incidental to their trade or calling. | Use for electricians, builders, chimney sweeps, repair workers. |
| OLA 1957, s2(4)(a) | Warning only discharges duty if it makes the visitor reasonably safe. | Use where warning signs/notices are given. |
| OLA 1957, s2(4)(b) | Occupier may avoid liability for independent contractor work if reasonable to entrust the work, contractor was competent, and checks were reasonable. | Use where contractor caused danger. |
| OLA 1957, s2(5) | Occupier owes no duty for risks willingly accepted by visitor. | Use for volenti/consent. |
| Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 | Governs duty owed to persons other than lawful visitors, mainly trespassers. | Use where claimant entered without permission. |
| OLA 1984, s1(1) | Applies to injury caused by danger due to the state of premises or things done/omitted on premises. | Start unlawful visitor answers here. |
| OLA 1984, s1(3)(a) | Occupier must know of danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists. | First condition for duty to trespassers. |
| OLA 1984, s1(3)(b) | Occupier must know or have reasonable grounds to believe trespassers may come near danger. | Second condition for duty. |
| OLA 1984, s1(3)(c) | Risk must be one against which occupier may reasonably be expected to offer protection. | Third condition for duty. |
| OLA 1984, s1(4) | Duty is to take reasonable care in all circumstances to see trespasser does not suffer injury because of the danger. | Main duty for unlawful visitors. (Legislation.gov.uk) |
| OLA 1984, s1(5) | Duty may be discharged by reasonable steps to warn of danger or discourage persons from taking the risk. | Use for warning signs/fencing/barriers. |
| OLA 1984, s1(6) | No duty owed for risks willingly accepted by trespasser. | Use for obvious risks and volenti. |
| Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s2(1) | Liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence cannot be excluded. | Use where occupier tries to exclude liability for injury/death. |
| UCTA 1977, s2(2) | Liability for other loss can only be excluded if reasonable. | Use for exclusion of property/economic loss. (Legislation.gov.uk) |
| UCTA 1977, s11 | Provides reasonableness test. | Use when judging whether exclusion clause/notice is valid. |
| Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s1 | Damages may be reduced if claimant partly caused their own injury. | Use where visitor/trespasser ignored warnings or behaved carelessly. |
2. LAWFUL VISITORS – OLA 1957 CASES
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd (1966) | Visitor died after falling on stairs in licensed premises. Both brewery owner and manager had control. | Occupier means person with sufficient control; more than one occupier may exist. | Use for identifying the occupier. |
| Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002) | Customer slipped in takeaway during wet weather. Mats were provided. | Occupier must take reasonable care, not guarantee perfect safety. | Use to show occupier is not an insurer. |
| Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd (1976) | Customer slipped on yoghurt in supermarket. | If accident likely caused by occupier’s system failure, burden may shift to occupier to show reasonable care. | Use for shop spill/slip cases. |
| Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922) | Child ate poisonous berries in public park and died. | Occupiers must guard against dangers attractive to children. | Use for allurement and children. |
| Jolley v Sutton LBC (2000) | Abandoned boat attracted children; child injured while playing/repairing it. | Occupier liable where it is foreseeable children may be attracted to danger. | Use for modern child allurement. |
| Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955) | Young child fell into trench while walking without adult supervision. | Occupier may expect young children to be supervised by parents. | Use to limit child visitor claims. |
| Simkiss v Rhondda Borough Council (1983) | Children climbed dangerous structure and were injured. | Older children may be expected to appreciate obvious risks. | Use where child is old enough to understand danger. |
| Roles v Nathan (1963) | Chimney sweeps died from carbon monoxide after being warned. | Skilled visitors expected to guard against risks connected to their trade. | Main case for trade/calling. |
| Ogwo v Taylor (1988) | Firefighter injured while dealing with fire caused by occupier. | Skilled visitor rule does not automatically protect occupier where the danger was created by occupier’s negligence. | Use to limit Roles v Nathan. |
| Haseldine v Daw & Son Ltd (1941) | Visitor injured when lift malfunctioned after specialist contractor maintained it. | Occupier not liable where technical work reasonably entrusted to competent contractor. | Use for independent contractors and technical work. |
| Woodward v Mayor of Hastings (1945) | Child slipped on icy school steps cleaned badly by contractor. | Occupier liable where work is simple enough to check. | Use where occupier should inspect contractor’s work. |
| Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club (2003) | Independent contractor arranged dangerous firework display; claimant injured. | Occupier liable where contractor was not competent and activity was dangerous. | Use where occupier fails to choose competent contractor. |
| Rae v Mars (UK) Ltd (1990) | Worker entered dark room with warning but fell into deep pit. | Warning must be enough to make visitor reasonably safe. | Use for inadequate warnings. |
| Staples v West Dorset District Council (1995) | Claimant slipped on algae-covered harbour wall; danger was obvious. | No need to warn against obvious risks. | Use for obvious danger. |
| Darby v National Trust (2001) | Claimant drowned in pond; no warning signs. | No duty to warn against obvious natural dangers. | Use for obvious water/natural risks. |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
3. UNLAWFUL VISITORS – OLA 1984 CASES
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Addie v Dumbreck (1929) | Child trespassed onto land with dangerous machinery and was killed. | Old common law: occupier owed trespassers only duty not to intentionally or recklessly harm them. | Use as historical background only. |
| British Railways Board v Herrington (1972) | Child entered railway line through broken fence and was injured. | Introduced duty of common humanity to trespassers before 1984 Act. | Use for development of law before OLA 1984. |
| Revill v Newbery (1996) | Burglar was shot by elderly occupier. | Trespassers, even criminals, may still receive protection; illegality does not automatically defeat claim. | Use for trespasser protection and illegality. |
| Ratcliff v McConnell (1999) | Student trespassed into swimming pool area at night and dived into shallow water. | No liability where adult trespasser willingly accepted obvious risk. | Use for obvious risk and volenti under 1984 Act. |
| Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003) | Claimant ignored warnings and dived into lake, suffering serious injury. | Occupier not liable where risk arose from claimant’s own dangerous activity, not the state of premises. | Main modern case for obvious risks to trespassers. |
| Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd (2003) | Claimant dived into harbour at midnight in winter and was injured. | Duty depends on whether occupier could reasonably expect trespassers at that time and place. | Use for foreseeability of trespasser presence. |
| Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006) | Child climbed fire escape and fell. | No liability where premises were not dangerous; injury came from claimant’s own risky use. | Use for child trespasser and obvious climbing risk. |
| Young v Kent County Council (2005) | Teenager climbed school roof and fell through skylight. | Occupier may be liable where children trespassing and danger are foreseeable. | Use where child trespassers are foreseeable and danger is serious. |
| Higgs v Foster (2004) | Police officer entered premises and fell into uncovered inspection pit. | Duty under 1984 Act requires occupier to know or reasonably believe someone may come near danger. | Use for s1(3)(b). |
| Westwood v Post Office (1973) | Child entered dangerous room marked “only authorised attendants allowed”. | Warning may be enough where danger is clear and entrant has no permission. | Use for warnings and restricted areas. |
4. DEFENCES CASES
| Defence | Case | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Volenti / Consent | Ratcliff v McConnell | Claimant willingly accepted obvious risk. | Use where trespasser knowingly takes risk. |
| Volenti / Obvious risk | Tomlinson v Congleton | Claimant’s own dangerous conduct caused injury. | Use for diving/climbing/obvious danger. |
| Contributory negligence | Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958) | Claimant trapped in toilet injured herself trying to escape; damages reduced. | Use where claimant acts carelessly after danger arises. |
| Illegality | Revill v Newbery | Criminal conduct does not automatically bar claim, but may affect damages. | Use where claimant is burglar/criminal trespasser. |
| Warnings | Rae v Mars | Warning must be effective. | Use where warning exists but is unclear/inadequate. |
| Obvious warning unnecessary | Staples v West Dorset | Obvious dangers need no warning. | Use where risk is plain. |
5. FINAL CASE MEMORY TABLE
| Case | One-Line Rule |
|---|---|
| Wheat v Lacon | Occupier = person with sufficient control; multiple occupiers possible. |
| Laverton v Kiapasha | Reasonable care required, not perfect safety. |
| Ward v Tesco | Shop slip may infer failure of safety system. |
| Glasgow Corporation v Taylor | Children must be protected from allurements. |
| Jolley v Sutton | Attractive danger to children may create liability. |
| Phipps v Rochester | Occupier may expect parental supervision of young children. |
| Simkiss v Rhondda | Older children may appreciate obvious danger. |
| Roles v Nathan | Skilled visitors expected to guard against trade risks. |
| Ogwo v Taylor | Skilled visitor rule limited where occupier created danger. |
| Haseldine v Daw | Occupier may rely on competent specialist contractor for technical work. |
| Woodward v Hastings | Occupier should inspect simple contractor work. |
| Bottomley v Todmorden | Occupier liable for choosing incompetent contractor for dangerous activity. |
| Rae v Mars | Warning must make visitor reasonably safe. |
| Staples v West Dorset | No warning needed for obvious danger. |
| Darby v National Trust | No duty to warn against obvious natural water danger. |
| Addie v Dumbreck | Old harsh rule for trespassers. |
| Herrington | Duty of common humanity to trespassers. |
| Revill v Newbery | Trespassers/criminals can still claim; illegality not automatic bar. |
| Ratcliff v McConnell | Adult trespasser accepted obvious risk. |
| Tomlinson v Congleton | No liability for claimant’s own risky activity. |
| Donoghue v Folkestone | Duty depends on foreseeable trespasser presence at relevant time/place. |
| Keown v Coventry Healthcare | No liability where claimant’s risky use, not premises, caused injury. |
| Young v Kent CC | Child trespasser may succeed if danger and presence foreseeable. |
| Higgs v Foster | Occupier must foresee trespassers near danger. |
| Westwood v Post Office | Warning/restricted notice may be enough. |
| Sayers v Harlow UDC | Contributory negligence reduces damages. |
6. FINAL STATUTE MEMORY TABLE
| Statute | One-Line Rule |
|---|---|
| Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 | Governs lawful visitors. |
| OLA 1957, s1(2) | Common duty of care owed to visitors. |
| OLA 1957, s1(3)(a) | Premises includes fixed and movable structures. |
| OLA 1957, s2(2) | Occupier must take reasonable care to make visitor reasonably safe. |
| OLA 1957, s2(3)(a) | Children are expected to be less careful than adults. |
| OLA 1957, s2(3)(b) | Skilled visitors expected to guard against trade risks. |
| OLA 1957, s2(4)(a) | Warning works only if it makes visitor reasonably safe. |
| OLA 1957, s2(4)(b) | Occupier may avoid contractor liability if selection and checks were reasonable. |
| OLA 1957, s2(5) | No duty for risks willingly accepted by visitor. |
| Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 | Governs trespassers/unlawful visitors. |
| OLA 1984, s1(3) | Duty arises only if occupier knows danger, knows trespassers may come near, and protection is reasonable. |
| OLA 1984, s1(4) | Duty is reasonable care to prevent injury from danger. |
| OLA 1984, s1(5) | Warnings may discharge duty. |
| OLA 1984, s1(6) | No duty for risks willingly accepted by trespasser. |
| UCTA 1977, s2(1) | Cannot exclude liability for death/personal injury caused by negligence. |
| UCTA 1977, s2(2) | Other negligence liability can be excluded only if reasonable. |
| UCTA 1977, s11 | Reasonableness test for exclusion clauses. |
| Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s1 | Damages reduced where claimant partly at fault. |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.