OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY: LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL VISITORS Everything Table
TOPIC 3: OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY – COMPLETE “EVERYTHING” TABLE
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. CORE OVERVIEW TABLE
| Area | Rule | What To Apply In Exam |
|---|---|---|
| Occupiers’ liability | Liability of people who control premises towards people entering those premises. | Always identify occupier, premises, entrant status, duty, breach, defence. |
| Lawful visitors | People who enter with permission. | Apply Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. |
| Unlawful visitors | People who enter without permission, mainly trespassers. | Apply Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. |
| Occupier | Person with sufficient control over premises. Ownership not required. | Ask who controlled the danger/premises. |
| Premises | Land, buildings, fixed structures, movable structures, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, ladders. | Do not limit premises to land only. |
| Main distinction | Lawful visitors receive stronger protection than trespassers. | Identify claimant’s legal status first. |
2. OCCUPIER AND PREMISES TABLE
| Issue | Rule | Key Case / Statute | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of occupier | Person with sufficient control over premises. | Wheat v E Lacon | Owner, tenant, manager, school, shop, local authority. |
| Ownership not essential | Control matters more than ownership. | Wheat v E Lacon | Defendant says, “I do not own the property.” |
| Multiple occupiers | More than one occupier may exist at the same time. | Wheat v E Lacon | Owner and manager both have control. |
| Premises | Includes land, buildings, structures, vehicles, vessels, aircraft. | OLA 1957, s1(3)(a) | Injury on ladder, lift, ship, vehicle, aircraft, temporary structure. |
3. LAWFUL VISITORS – OLA 1957 TABLE
| Area | Rule | Key Statute / Case | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing law | Lawful visitors are covered by Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. | OLA 1957 | Claimant had permission to enter. |
| Lawful visitor | Person entering with express, implied, contractual or statutory permission. | OLA 1957 | Customer, guest, student, patient, delivery worker. |
| Common duty | Occupier must take reasonable care to make visitor reasonably safe. | OLA 1957, s2(2) | Main lawful visitor duty. |
| Reasonable safety | Occupier does not guarantee perfect safety. | Laverton v Kiapasha | Accident occurs despite precautions. |
| Purpose of visit | Visitor must be safe for the purpose they were invited/permitted. | OLA 1957, s2(2) | Visitor enters shop, school, house, hospital etc. |
| Warning | Warning only works if it makes visitor reasonably safe. | OLA 1957, s2(4)(a); Rae v Mars | Warning sign given but danger still remains. |
| Volenti | No duty for risks willingly accepted by visitor. | OLA 1957, s2(5) | Visitor knowingly accepts danger. |
| Exclusion clause | Liability for injury/death cannot usually be excluded. | UCTA 1977, s2 | Notice says “no liability accepted.” |
4. CHILD VISITORS TABLE
| Area | Rule | Key Case / Statute | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Special child duty | Occupier must expect children to be less careful than adults. | OLA 1957, s2(3)(a) | Injured claimant is a child. |
| Allurement | Occupier may be liable if danger attracts children. | Glasgow Corporation v Taylor | Poisonous berries, machinery, water, abandoned objects. |
| Modern allurement | If children are likely to be attracted, precautions may be needed. | Jolley v Sutton LBC | Abandoned boat/vehicle/building site. |
| Parental supervision | Occupier may expect young children to be supervised. | Phipps v Rochester | Very young child unsupervised. |
| Older children | Older children may be expected to understand obvious risks. | Simkiss v Rhondda | Teenager/older child injured by obvious danger. |
5. SKILLED VISITORS TABLE
| Area | Rule | Key Case / Statute | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trade/calling | Occupier may expect skilled visitors to guard against ordinary risks of their work. | OLA 1957, s2(3)(b) | Electrician, plumber, builder, chimney sweep. |
| Risk linked to skill | Occupier less likely liable if danger is part of visitor’s expertise. | Roles v Nathan | Chimney sweep injured by fumes. |
| Limit | Occupier may still be liable if danger created by occupier’s negligence. | Ogwo v Taylor | Firefighter/rescuer injured by occupier-created danger. |
| Exam method | Ask whether danger was normally incidental to the trade. | OLA 1957, s2(3)(b) | Skilled worker claim. |
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.
6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS TABLE
| Area | Rule | Key Case / Statute | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| General rule | Occupier may avoid liability if contractor was competent and selection/checks were reasonable. | OLA 1957, s2(4)(b) | Contractor created danger. |
| Technical work | Occupier may rely on specialist contractor. | Haseldine v Daw | Lift, technical machinery, specialist repairs. |
| Simple work | Occupier may need to inspect simple work. | Woodward v Hastings | Cleaning steps, simple maintenance. |
| Dangerous activity | Occupier liable if incompetent contractor chosen for dangerous work. | Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club | Fireworks, hazardous display, risky work. |
| Exam chain | Was it reasonable to hire contractor? Was contractor competent? Were checks reasonable? | OLA 1957, s2(4)(b) | Independent contractor defence. |
7. WARNINGS TABLE
| Area | Rule | Key Case / Statute | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warning must be effective | Warning only works if it makes visitor reasonably safe. | OLA 1957, s2(4)(a) | Sign or notice present. |
| Inadequate warning | Warning fails if unclear or insufficient. | Rae v Mars | Warning does not explain serious danger. |
| Obvious danger | No need to warn against obvious danger. | Staples v West Dorset | Slippery harbour wall, obvious risk. |
| Natural obvious danger | No duty to warn against obvious natural water risks. | Darby v National Trust | Pond, lake, obvious drowning risk. |
| Exam chain | Was warning clear, visible, specific and enough to make visitor safe? | Rae v Mars | Warning issue. |
8. UNLAWFUL VISITORS – OLA 1984 TABLE
| Area | Rule | Key Statute / Case | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing law | Trespassers/unlawful visitors covered by OLA 1984. | Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 | Claimant entered without permission. |
| Protected persons | Persons other than lawful visitors. | OLA 1984, s1(1) | Trespasser, burglar, person exceeding permission. |
| Duty condition 1 | Occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe danger exists. | OLA 1984, s1(3)(a) | Occupier aware of dangerous hole, roof, lake, machinery. |
| Duty condition 2 | Occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe trespassers may come near danger. | OLA 1984, s1(3)(b) | Broken fence, previous trespass, known shortcut. |
| Duty condition 3 | Risk is one against which occupier may reasonably be expected to offer protection. | OLA 1984, s1(3)(c) | Serious and foreseeable danger. |
| Scope of duty | Take reasonable care to prevent injury from danger. | OLA 1984, s1(4) | Main trespasser duty. |
| Warning | Duty may be discharged by warning or discouraging risk. | OLA 1984, s1(5) | Warning signs/fences/barriers. |
| Accepted risk | No duty for risks willingly accepted. | OLA 1984, s1(6) | Obvious danger knowingly taken. |
| Property damage | 1984 Act usually covers personal injury/death, not property damage. | OLA 1984 | Trespasser’s property damaged. |
9. UNLAWFUL VISITOR CASE TABLE
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Addie v Dumbreck | Child trespasser killed by machinery. | Old law gave trespassers very little protection. | Historical background only. |
| British Railways Board v Herrington | Child entered railway through broken fence and was injured. | Introduced duty of common humanity before 1984 Act. | Development of trespasser protection. |
| Revill v Newbery | Burglar shot by occupier. | Trespasser/criminal may still claim; illegality not automatic bar. | Use for criminal trespasser. |
| Ratcliff v McConnell | Student trespassed into swimming pool and dived into shallow water. | No liability for obvious risk willingly accepted. | Adult trespasser + obvious risk. |
| Tomlinson v Congleton | Claimant ignored warnings and dived into lake. | No liability where injury came from claimant’s own risky act, not premises. | Main obvious risk case. |
| Donoghue v Folkestone | Claimant dived into harbour at midnight in winter. | Duty depends on foreseeable trespasser presence at time/place. | Foreseeability of trespassers. |
| Keown v Coventry Healthcare | Child climbed fire escape and fell. | No liability where premises not dangerous; injury from claimant’s own use. | Child climbing obvious danger. |
| Young v Kent CC | Teenager climbed school roof and fell through skylight. | Liability possible where child trespass and danger foreseeable. | Child trespasser + foreseeable danger. |
| Higgs v Foster | Police officer fell into inspection pit while on land. | Occupier must foresee people coming near danger. | OLA 1984 s1(3)(b). |
| Westwood v Post Office | Child entered room marked restricted. | Warning/restricted notice may be enough. | Warning to trespassers. |
10. DEFENCES TABLE
| Defence | Rule | Key Authority | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Volenti | No liability if claimant willingly accepted risk. | OLA 1957, s2(5); OLA 1984, s1(6) | Claimant knowingly accepts obvious danger. |
| Obvious risk | Occupier may not be liable for obvious danger. | Tomlinson; Ratcliff; Staples; Darby | Diving, climbing, water, obvious hazard. |
| Contributory negligence | Damages reduced if claimant partly responsible. | Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 | Claimant ignored warning/acted carelessly. |
| Illegality | Criminal conduct may affect claim but does not automatically defeat it. | Revill v Newbery | Burglar/intruder injured. |
| Warning | Warning may discharge duty if adequate. | Rae v Mars; OLA 1957 s2(4)(a); OLA 1984 s1(5) | Sign, fence, notice. |
| Exclusion clause | Cannot exclude death/personal injury by negligence. Other exclusions must be reasonable. | UCTA 1977, s2 and s11 | “No liability” notice. |
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.
11. LAWFUL VS UNLAWFUL VISITOR COMPARISON TABLE
| Issue | Lawful Visitors | Unlawful Visitors |
|---|---|---|
| Main statute | Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 | Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 |
| Status | Permission to enter | No permission / trespasser |
| Duty level | Higher | Lower |
| Main duty | Reasonable care to make visitor reasonably safe | Reasonable care to prevent injury from danger |
| Main section | OLA 1957, s2(2) | OLA 1984, s1(4) |
| Property damage | Covered | Usually not covered |
| Children | Special duty under s2(3)(a) | No identical wording, but age and foreseeability still relevant |
| Skilled visitors | Special rule under s2(3)(b) | Not central |
| Independent contractors | Specific defence under s2(4)(b) | Less central |
| Warnings | Must make visitor reasonably safe | Must be reasonable to warn/discourage risk |
| Volenti | OLA 1957, s2(5) | OLA 1984, s1(6) |
| Exclusion | Controlled by UCTA | Mainly warnings/notices, less contract-based |
12. COMPLETE EXAM METHOD TABLE
| Step | What To Do | What To Mention |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Identify premises | Land/building/vehicle/structure etc. |
| 2 | Identify occupier | Person with sufficient control. Use Wheat v Lacon. |
| 3 | Identify danger | What caused injury? State of premises or activity? |
| 4 | Identify entrant status | Lawful visitor or unlawful visitor? |
| 5 | If lawful visitor | Apply OLA 1957, s2(2). |
| 6 | Apply common duty | Was visitor reasonably safe? |
| 7 | Check child rule | OLA 1957, s2(3)(a), Glasgow, Jolley, Phipps. |
| 8 | Check skilled visitor rule | OLA 1957, s2(3)(b), Roles v Nathan. |
| 9 | Check contractor rule | OLA 1957, s2(4)(b), Haseldine, Woodward. |
| 10 | Check warning | OLA 1957, s2(4)(a), Rae v Mars. |
| 11 | Check exclusion | UCTA 1977. |
| 12 | If unlawful visitor | Apply OLA 1984. |
| 13 | Apply three conditions | s1(3)(a), s1(3)(b), s1(3)(c). |
| 14 | Apply duty | s1(4): reasonable care to prevent injury. |
| 15 | Check obvious risk | Tomlinson, Ratcliff, Keown. |
| 16 | Check warnings | OLA 1984, s1(5). |
| 17 | Check defences | Volenti, contributory negligence, illegality. |
| 18 | Conclude | Liable, not liable, duty absent, or damages reduced. |
13. ONE-LINE CASE MEMORY TABLE
| Case | One-Line Rule |
|---|---|
| Wheat v Lacon | Occupier = person with sufficient control; multiple occupiers possible. |
| Laverton v Kiapasha | Occupier must take reasonable care, not guarantee perfect safety. |
| Ward v Tesco | Shop slip may infer system failure. |
| Glasgow Corporation v Taylor | Children protected from attractive dangers/allurements. |
| Jolley v Sutton | Abandoned dangerous objects attracting children can 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 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 be effective and 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: little protection for trespassers. |
| Herrington | Duty of common humanity to trespassers before 1984 Act. |
| Revill v Newbery | Criminal trespasser 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 danger came from claimant’s misuse, not premises. |
| Young v Kent CC | Child trespasser may succeed where presence and danger foreseeable. |
| Higgs v Foster | Occupier must foresee trespassers near the danger. |
| Westwood v Post Office | Warning/restricted notice may be enough. |
| Sayers v Harlow | Contributory negligence may reduce damages. |
14. ONE-LINE STATUTE MEMORY TABLE
| Statute / Section | One-Line Rule |
|---|---|
| OLA 1957 | Applies to lawful visitors. |
| OLA 1957, s1(2) | Common duty of care owed to lawful visitors. |
| OLA 1957, s1(3)(a) | Premises includes fixed and movable structures. |
| OLA 1957, s2(2) | Reasonable care to make visitor reasonably safe. |
| OLA 1957, s2(3)(a) | Children are 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) | Contractor defence if selection/checking reasonable. |
| OLA 1957, s2(5) | No duty for risks willingly accepted. |
| OLA 1984 | Applies to trespassers/unlawful visitors. |
| OLA 1984, s1(3)(a) | Occupier must know or suspect danger exists. |
| OLA 1984, s1(3)(b) | Occupier must know or suspect trespassers may come near danger. |
| OLA 1984, s1(3)(c) | Risk must be one against which protection is reasonably expected. |
| OLA 1984, s1(4) | Reasonable care to prevent injury from danger. |
| OLA 1984, s1(5) | Warning/discouragement may discharge duty. |
| OLA 1984, s1(6) | No duty for willingly accepted risks. |
| 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. |
| Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 | Damages reduced if claimant partly at fault. |
15. FINAL CHAINS TO MEMORISE
| Chain | Must Write |
|---|---|
| Occupier chain | Control → premises → danger → visitor status → duty → breach → defence. |
| Lawful visitor chain | Permission → OLA 1957 → common duty → reasonable safety → special rules → defences. |
| Child visitor chain | Child → less careful → allurement → precautions → parental supervision. |
| Skilled visitor chain | Trade/calling → risk linked to skill → expected to guard against it. |
| Contractor chain | Technical/simple work → competent contractor → reasonable selection → reasonable inspection. |
| Warning chain | Warning → visible → clear → specific → makes visitor reasonably safe/protected. |
| Unlawful visitor chain | Trespasser → known danger → foreseeable presence → protection reasonable → injury → defences. |
| Obvious risk chain | Obvious danger → claimant understands → claimant chooses risk → occupier likely not liable. |
| Defence chain | Volenti → contributory negligence → illegality → exclusion/warning. |
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.