Occupiers Liability Act 1957

Key provisions of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 section 2

In order to understand the rights and duties prescribed by the Act, it is essential to examine the key provisions of section 2. This section sets out the framework for occupiers' liability, identifying the parties involved, the level of care owed by the occupier, and the types of visitors protected.

The concept of "Occupier" under the Act

Section 1(2) of the Act defines an occupier as a person who has a sufficient degree of control over the premises, such that they have the ability to ensure that the premises are safe for visitors. This could include property owners, tenants, or anyone else in control of the property.

It is important to note that there can be more than one occupier of a property, and each occupier may owe separate duties to visitors depending on the circumstances.

Levels of duty owed by the Occupier

Section 2(1) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 imposes a general duty of care upon occupiers for visitors, requiring them to take reasonable care to ensure that the visitor will be reasonably safe when using the premises for the intended purpose. The duty of care depends on the circumstances of the case, but key factors can include:

• The foreseeability of harm to the visitor
• The nature of the property and its potential dangers
• Any warning signs or precautions taken by the occupier
• The age and experience of the visitor

In addition, section 2(3) of the Act provides that an occupier may be able to restrict, modify, or exclude their duty of care through contract or agreement, subject to certain limitations.

Types of visitors covered under Section 2

Section 2(1) of the Act applies to all lawful visitors, which can be classified into two main categories:

1. Invitees: These visitors have been expressly invited by the occupier and are typically present for a specific purpose related to the occupier's interests, such as customers in a shop or guests at a party.
2. Licensees: These visitors have been granted permission by the occupier to enter the premises, but their presence is not directly related to the occupier's interests, such as friends or family members visiting the property.

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 Case Law

A significant body of case law has emerged from the courts' interpretation and application of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. These cases provided greater clarity on specific concepts, set precedents, and ultimately shaped the interpretation of the Act.

Famous cases that shaped the Occupiers Liability Act 1957

Analyzing some of the most influential cases in occupiers' liability can help deepen your understanding of the elements involved in this area of law and the practical implications of the Act. In this section, we'll discuss three key cases: Roles v Nathan (1963), Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002), and Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003).

Roles v Nathan (1963)

Roles v Nathan established the concept of "volenti non fit injuria" or the voluntary assumption of risk in cases involving the Occupiers Liability Act. It clarified that if a visitor willingly and knowingly accepts a risk associated with potential hazards on the premises, the occupier's liability may be limited or completely negated. The case involved two chimney sweeps who died from exposure to carbon monoxide fumes while cleaning a coal-fired boiler in the course of their work. The occupier had warned them not to clean the boiler while it was still warm, but they decided to proceed despite the warning.

The courts held that:

• The occupier had fulfilled their duty of care by providing a warning
• The chimney sweeps had voluntarily assumed the risk by proceeding with their work against the advice of the occupier
• Therefore, the occupier was not found liable for the deaths of the chimney sweeps

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002)

In Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme, the courts examined the concept of "reasonableness" in the duty of care owed by occupiers. The plaintiff slipped on a wet floor in a takeaway shop and sustained injuries. The shop had recently mopped the floor, and although a wet floor sign was displayed, it was partly obscured. The main issue in this case was determining whether the occupier had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of visitors.

The courts held that:

• Occupiers are not required to eliminate every potential risk, but rather to take reasonable care to ensure safety
• In this case, the shop had taken reasonable steps by mopping the floor and displaying a wet floor sign
• Despite the sign being partially obscured, the shop's precautions were deemed sufficient
• Therefore, the occupier was not found liable for the plaintiff's injuries

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council dealt with the responsibility of occupiers to protect visitors from their own actions. The claimant dived into a shallow lake in a country park operated by the council, resulting in a severe spinal injury. The council had placed numerous warning signs prohibiting swimming and diving, and the lake was not intended for recreational use.

The courts held that:

• The council had taken reasonable steps to warn visitors of the dangers associated with swimming and diving in the lake
• The duty of care owed by the council as the occupier did not extend to protecting the claimant from his own reckless behaviour
• Therefore, the council was not found liable for the claimant's injuries

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 Evaluation

In this section, we will delve into a detailed evaluation of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, examining its pros and cons, advantages of the legislation, and criticisms, along with potential areas for improvement.

Pros and cons of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

Like any piece of legislation, the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 has both its advantages and disadvantages. We will look into the strengths and weaknesses of the law and discuss the impact it has had on visitors and occupiers alike.

Advantages of the legislation

Several key advantages of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 include:

• Clarity and consistency: The Act provides a clear and consistent framework for occupiers' liability in the UK, establishing the duty of care owed to visitors and outlining the circumstances in which liability can arise.
• Protection for visitors: The Act ensures that visitors have a level of protection when entering premises and can expect a reasonable level of safety, reducing the likelihood of accidents occurring as a result of negligence on the part of the occupier.
• Balance of interests: By allowing occupiers to restrict or exclude their liability through contract or agreement (subject to limitations), the Act strikes a balance between the interests of visitors and those of occupiers, recognising that occupiers should not be held responsible for all accidents and injuries on their premises.
• Flexibility: The Act is flexible enough to adapt to the specific circumstances of each case, considering factors such as the nature of the property, the foreseeability of harm, and the age and experience of the visitor when calculating the reasonable level of care required.

Criticisms and areas for improvement

Despite its advantages, the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 also faces various criticisms, and there are areas where improvements could potentially be made. These include:

• Complexity: Some critics argue that the Act can be complicated and difficult for laypeople to understand, particularly with regard to the distinction between invitees and licensees and the varying levels of duty owed to each category of visitor.
• Limited scope: The Act only applies to lawful visitors, leaving trespassers and other unlawful visitors without protection under this legislation. However, it is important to note that the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 was introduced to address this issue and extend the scope of occupiers' liability to include trespassers, albeit with a lesser duty of care.
• Perception of unfairness: There is a perception that the Act may be unfair to occupiers in certain situations, as the duty of care owed to visitors can be onerous, and occupiers may be held responsible for accidents even when they have taken reasonable precautions.
• Impact on small businesses: Some critics argue that the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 may have a disproportionate impact on small businesses, which could face significant financial burdens as a result of their liability for accidents on their premises.

Overall, the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 has played an essential role in shaping the liability landscape in the UK, providing clear guidance and protection for both visitors and occupiers. While there are areas where the Act could be improved, it remains a crucial element of UK law and has largely stood the test of time.

Defence under Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

When facing a claim for occupiers' liability under the 1957 Act, a defendant can rely upon several common defences to challenge or reduce their responsibility for any injuries or losses sustained by visitors. In this section, we shall discuss the primary defences employed in such cases and their implications in occupiers' liability disputes.

Common defences used in Occupiers' Liability cases

Defendants in Occupiers' Liability cases usually rely on one or more of the following key defences: volenti non fit injuria, contributory negligence, and the presence of adequate warnings and exclusions. Each of these defences has specific requirements and implications that may impact the claimant's ability to recover damages or the amount they may receive.

Volenti non fit injuria

The volenti non fit injuria defence asserts that the claimant willingly and knowingly accepted the risk of injury associated with the defendant's negligence. If successfully established in court, this defence can lead to a complete denial of the claimant's damages. For this defence to apply, the following criteria must be met:

• The claimant must have full knowledge of the extent and nature of the risk involved
• The claimant must voluntarily accept and assume the risk
• The defendant must not have breached any particular duty of care owed to the claimant, beyond what was reasonably expected and voluntarily assumed by the claimant

It is important to note that a claimant's mere awareness of a possible risk does not automatically amount to volenti non fit injuria. The claimant must have genuinely consented to that risk without coercion or duress.

Contributory negligence

Under the defence of contributory negligence, a claimant's damages may be reduced if they are found to have contributed to their own injury, loss, or damage through their own negligence. This defence is applied proportionately - the reduction in damages corresponds to the extent the claimant's actions contributed to their injury. In an occupiers' liability context, this defence may apply when the claimant:

• Failed to take reasonable care for their own safety
• Ignored warnings or instructions provided by the occupier
• Engaged in risky or reckless behaviour while on the premises

It should be emphasised that a finding of contributory negligence does not absolve the defendant from liability entirely, but merely reduces the damages awarded to the claimant according to the degree of the claimant's fault.

Adequate warnings and exclusions

If an occupier takes reasonable steps to warn visitors, or exclude certain areas or activities, they may have a valid defence against liability. This defence typically applies when:

• A clear and adequate warning or exclusion has been given, informing the visitor of potential hazards and the steps necessary to avoid them
• The warning or exclusion effectively communicates the risks and restrictions to the visitor
• The occupier has taken reasonable precautions beyond the warning or exclusion to ensure the visitor's safety

Effective warnings and exclusions can be crucial in defending against liability claims, as they typically demonstrate the occupier's due diligence in providing a reasonably safe environment for visitors.