Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Occupiers Liability Notes

Law Notes > Tort Law Notes

This is an extract of our Occupiers Liability document, which we sell as part of our Tort Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tort Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Occupiers Liability



Liability under statute (i) Was PI or property damage suffered while C or his property was on the premises occupied by D (1956 Act covers both, 1984 only PI)
? no =no occupiers liability, but may be liable for nuisance or under Rylands v Fletcher (ii) Did damage arise from danger associated w/the state of premises?
? no = no occupiers liability Liability to Visitors: Occupier's Liability Act 1957 i.1. Was D an "occupier"?
? No statutory definition, apply common law ?Wheat v Lacon - "does D have sufficient degree of control over premises such that he ought to realize that any failure on his part to use care may cause injury to a person lawfully coming there" o Wheat v Lacon -D brewers owned a public house run by manager living on d 1 st floor w/ wife. Guest fell down the stairsb/c handrail was too short &no proper lightning. Held manager owed common law duty under 1957 Act but didn't breach it. D brewer & manager could be occupiers simultaneously, relevant duties dependent on circumstances of occupation.
? If A owns the premises a. No-one is there ? A occupiers b. B leases ?B (not A) occupies c. B has a licence ? A probably has sufficient control
? A company can occupy through its servants -Wheat v Lacon
? Not necessary for occupier to have exclusive occupation - more than one occupier possible for same part of a building - Wheat v Lacon
? Occupational control is a question of degree - a contractor building the house may have control of the site whilst the guy fitting a mirror might not

1. Was C a "visitor"?
? "Visitor" = a person whom the occupier has given express or implied permission to enter
- invitees - a person invited onto the premises
- licensees - someone who merely had permission to enter the premises, express or implied
- allwho entered premises in exercise of a right conferred by law (s1(6)) i. firemen fighting fire ii. policeman executing a search warrant iii. public/private right of way is not a visitor o McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive (but private right of way can give rise to duty under OLA1984) -a person tripped on a path owned by local housing authority not maintained properly. The path was a public right of way so OLA didn't apply.
? Where a person entered under contract terms, a term can be implied that duty of care is owed to him (s5)
? Implied licenses: prior to 1984 Act, children were main beneficiaries but could also apply to adults (e.g. where occupier did nothing for years to deter people from walking through his land)
? A person can cease to be classed as visitor if he exceeds the terms of his permission ?
"when you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you don't invite him to slide down the banister" o Harvey v Plymouth City Council [2010] - C drunk; out w/friends, immediately prior to accident was running away from taxi in order to avoid paying; ran over grassed area onto piece of land owned by LA; fell through gap in bushes, landing on concrete, suffered PI, incl. BD; sought

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort Law Notes.

More Tort Law Samples