CASE/STATUTE LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Wheat v E Lacon Both the manager and the owner in this case were occupiers as they had
control over the premises-there can be more then one occupier

Haris v Birkenhead The CoA held that actual physical possession was not needed. To be
regarded as an occupier, the defendant must have the legal right to control the
premises

Revill v Newbery Occupiers liability only applies where the fact that the defendant is the
occupier of the land is in some way relevant to their liability. Where the
damage could equally have been done by someone who was not an occupier,
the normal rules of negligence apply.

s1(3) OLA 1957 Premises includes land, buildings and any fixed or movable structure
including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft

s2(6) OLA 1957 Anyone who enters premises under a right conferred by law such as police
officers will be classified as visitors.

McGeown v Northern The HOL confirmed that people who used rights of way such as public
Ireland footpaths were neither visitors nor trespassers and were therefore owed no
duty

Countryside and Rights of There is a general right to walk over open land such as a ‘mountain, moor,
Way Act 2000 heath or down.’Such people exercising their right to roam are not visitors but
may be covered under the OLA 1984

s2(1) OLA 1957 An occupier owes a common duty of care to all visitors. The occupier may,
however, exclude or modify the duty he owes to a particular visitor by
agreement

s2(2) OLA 1957 Occupiers have a duty towards visitors to take such care as is reasonable to
see that the visitor is reasonably safe. This means that the occupier does not
necessarily have to provide absolute safety and can discharge this duty by
providing a reasonable warning

Ward v Ritz Hotel The fact that the hotel did not comply with the strict safety standards
recommended by the British Standards institution meant they had not taken
reasonable care as required by the Act

Horton v Jackson There was no breach of duty by the golf club in this case because a golf ball
had only hit people 2 times out of 800000 rounds of golf played. This meant
that the club had been taking reasonable care. There is no need for absolute
safety

Darby v National Trust The occupier is not expected to warn about obvious risks such as swimming in
a pond

Wood v Smith Minor defects in the premises need not be rectified by the occupier because
 the occupier is not under a duty to make the premises absolutely safe

Clare v Perry In assessing whether precautions are reasonably required, the court could
take account of the behaviour reasonably expected of a visitor. In this case,
the claimant’s decision to exit a hotel by jumping off a wall with a six foot drop
was unexpected and foolish. Hence the occupier was not liable.

S 2(3)(a) OLA 1957 An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. If the
occupier allows a child to enter the premises, then the premises must be
reasonably safe for a child of that age.

Phipps v Rochester An occupier will be allowed to assume that very young children will be
accompanied by someone supervising them. This reduces the degree od care
required by the occupier since the responsibility for the safety of little children
rests primarily with the parents.

Jolley v Sutton Occupiers will be liable if their premises have an allurement for children such
as the boat in this case. The argument by the defendant that the childrens
decision to get under the boat was unforeseeable was rejected. It was held
that children exercise considerable ingenuity in finding ways to get into trouble
and that must be taken into account when assessing the precautions needed
to keep them safe.

Glasgow Corporation v The occupier in this case was liable for having on his premises poisonous
Taylor berries which were an ‘allurement’ for children

Bourne Leisure v Marsden Whilst the parents in this case were not at fault for the death of their child
since they were generally responsible and attentive parents, the fact that they
were not at fault did not mean the park was liable for this death

Simkiss v Rhodda The court stated that an occupier should not be asked to achieve a higher
standard of care than a parent who did not consider the premises a risk to the
child

s2(3)(b) OLA 1957 An occupier may expect a person, in the exercise of their calling, will
appreciate and guard against any risks that are usually connected with it

Roles v Nathan The defendants in this case were not liable for the death of the chimney
sweeps because they could assume that the sweeps would be aware of the
risk.

Ogwo v Taylor The defendants in this case were liable for the claimant firefighters injuries
sustained because of their negligence. This is because the blaze was such
that no amount of care could have protected the claimant, thus the defendant
could not rely on s 2(3)(b) to avoid liability.

General Cleaning A window cleaner is expected to guard against the risks from defective
Contractors v Christmas windows, so his claim against the householder failed

s2(4)(b) OLA 1957 If the occupier hires an independent contractor for repair or maintenance, the
occupier will not be liable for the contractors negligence if he/she took
 reasonable steps to ensure that a competent contractor is hired and does
what is reasonable to ensure that the work is done properly. In addition, it must
be reasonable to entrust the work to an independent contractor in the first
place.

Haseldine v Daw The technicality of the work with respect to lift installation meant that the
occupier was not under a duty to check that it had been done properly.

Woodward v Mayor of The occupier was under a duty to check if the snow had been shoveled
Hastings properly from a schools steps because there was no technical knowledge
needed to check the cleaning of a step

GWilliam v West Checking the competence of an independent contractor included the duty to
Hertfordshire check the insurance status of the independent contractor. However, the
occupier was not under a duty to check the actual policy document and the
duty could be discharged merely by asking a contractor about their insurance
status at the time of hiring

Bottomley v Todmorden The occupier was liable because they had not taken sufficient care to ensure
that a fireworks firm they hired was competent and had adequate insurance

Naylor v Payling The CoA rejected the idea that the occupier would always have a duty to
check whether a contractor had insurance. It was held that such a duty would
only arise in special circumstances such as where there was a statutory
requirement to check for insurance.

s2(1) UCTA 1977 An occupier cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury arising from
negligence.

s2(2) UCTA 1977 An occupiers attempt to exclude liability for property damage arising from
negligence will be subject to the test of reasonableness in UCTA

White v Blackmore The occupier in this case was not liable for the death of the claimant because
they had taken all reasonable precautions to bring to the claimants attention
the fact that the defendant would not be liable for any accidents. This is one
case in which the defendant successfully excluded liability for death despite
the provisions of UCTA 1977

s2(3) OLA 1957 In considering whether an occupier has breached the common duty of care,
the courts may take into account the degree of care a reasonable visitor can
be expected to show for their own safety. Damages can be reduced for
contributory negligence.

s2(4)(a) OLA 1957 The occupier is not liable if the visitor has been given a sufficient warning to
make them reasonably safe.

Cotton v Derbyshire There was no obligation to warn of an obvious risk such as walking down a
steep slope of loose stones with no path

Rae v Mars An occupier can be liable for a failure to warn if the danger is immediate. An
occupier was liable for the failure to warn against the danger of falling into a pit
 in circumstances where there was no time for the claimant to use a torch

Roles v Nathan To illustrate what would amount to a sufficient warning, Lord Denning gave the
example of a house with a river in front of it which could only be crossed using
a dangerous bridge. Merely warning against this risk would not suffice. The
sign would not be adequate to make visitors safe as they had no reasonable
alternative to get to the house.

s2(5) OLA 1957 The occupier does not impose upon an occupier any obligation to take care if
the risk of harm has been willingly accepted by the visitor. However, a visitor
will not be deemed to have accepted a risk merely because the occupier
displays a warning to that effect

s2(3) OLA 1957 A visitor will not be considered to have voluntarily accepted a risk just because
the occupier has displayed a notice excluding liability for that risk and the
occupier is aware of it.

Herrington v British The common duty of humanity applied to trespassers.

s1(1)(a) OLA 1984 An occupier will owe a duty of care to persons other than visitors to take such
care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that they do not suffer injury
on the premises by reason of the state of the premises

Tomlinson v Congleton A person who is initially a visitor may become a trespasser if he/she exceeds
the permission of being on the premises

Gould v McAuliffe If an area is not marked as ‘private’, a visitor wandering into that area would
not be a trespasser. If an occupier wanted to restrict access to a part of the
premises, they must take reasonable steps to inform the visitor of that

Keown v Coventry The hospital trust was not liable for the injuries of 12 year old Keown because
there was nothing dangerous about the state of the fire escape. What had
caused the risk was the claimants decision to use the fire escape. Therefore
the danger was not caused by something the occupier had done

Siddorn v Patel The occupier was not liable for the claimants decision to undertake in the
dangerous activity of dancing on skylight because the skylight was not
unsuitable or unsafe for its usual purpose. Hence there was nothing
dangerous about the state of the skylight.

s1(3)(a), (b) andn © OLA A duty of care to a trespasser will only exist if the occupier is aware of the
1984 danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists. Secondly the
occupier must have reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser would
come in the vicinity of the danger and it must be reasonable to expect the
occupier to offer some protection from the risk

Swain v Natui Since there was no evidence of previous trespass in this case, the occupier
was not liable. The court held that the phrase ‘reasonable grounds to believe’
in s1(3) made it necessary for the defendant to have actual knowledge of
relevant facts which provided grounds for such a belief, it did not mean ‘ought
 to have known.’

Higgs v Foster The occupier was not liable because it could not be said that they had
reasonable grounds to suspect that a trespasser would come in the vicinity of
the danger

Scott v Associated British The defendants owed a duty since they were aware of a risk as there had
Ports been a similar accident before. Their knowledge of the first accident meant
that they owed a duty to prevent a similar accident.

Donoghue v Folkestone The occupier in this case was not liable for the claimants injuries since there
Properties Ltd was no reason to believe that anyone would be swimming in the harbour at
midnight in winter months

Ratcliff v McConnell The college was not liable for the injuries sustained by the claimant who was
swimming outside of permitted hours. Since there had only been one instance
of trespassing at the pool in four years, there was no reason for the college to
suspect that students would come into the vicinity of the poo.

The defendant also had the defence of volenti in this case since the claimant
knew that the pool was closed and had shallow water, yet willingly consented
to the risk of harm.

s1(5) OLA 1984 An occupier will fulfill their duty to a trespasser by taking reasonable steps to
give a warning of a specific danger and discourage people from taking a risk

s1(6) OLA 1984 There is no duty of care owed to someone who willingly accepts the risk of a
known danger

Titchener v British Railways It was held that adult claimants are regarded as accepting any risk which they
knew about when entering the land. The defence of volenti provides greater
protection for occupiers regarding trespassers than it does with regard to
visitors.