Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
- teachlawhub
- Oct 11
- 3 min read
Updated: Oct 12
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) protects lawful visitors from personal injury and property damage that may occur on premises. It establishes a common duty of care for occupiers to ensure visitors’ safety while on their property. This duty ensures that visitors are protected from personal injury or property damage while on the premises.
The Act covers visitors with permission to be on the premises, such as:
Invitees (those invited for business or personal reasons)
Licensees (those with permission for a specific purpose)
Contractual visitors (those allowed on premises based on a contract)
Statutory visitors (those with permission based on legal authority, like emergency responders)
Under Section 2(1) of the OLA 1957, the occupier will owe a common duty of care to all lawful visitors. This means that occupiers are required to take reasonable steps to ensure visitors are safe while on the premises for their intended purpose.
Key Terms: Occupier & Premises
Occupier: there is no strict definition of occupier in the OLA 1957. An occupier is anyone with sufficient control over the premises, and control doesn’t need to be exclusive. Multiple individuals can share responsibility for the premises.
Wheat v Lacon (1966)
In this case, a guest in a pub fell down a staircase because the handrail was poorly maintained. The court decided that both the pub owner and manager were joint occupiers as they shared control of the premises.
Premises: the term premises is broadly defined in Section 1(3) and includes fixed and movable structures such as buildings, vehicles, vessels, and aircraft.
Types of Visitors and Duty of Care
1. Adults - Under Section 2(2), occupiers owe a duty to ensure that adults are reasonably safe while using the premises for their invited purpose. However, visitors are expected to exercise a degree of responsibility for their own safety. Common risks, like tripping, do not automatically result in liability unless there is a real source of danger.
Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell (2016) The occupiers were not liable when a visitor tripped on a raised concrete slab. The court ruled that the risk of tripping was a normal, everyday risk and did not create a real source of danger. This case highlights that not all risks on the premises are considered dangerous enough to warrant occupier liability, only those that pose a significant risk to visitors.
2. Children - Under Section 2(3)(a) children are presumed to be less cautious than adults, so occupiers owe a higher duty of care and must ensure that children are kept safe and guard against allurements - hazards that may attract children (e.g., poisonous berries, ponds). However, parents also have a role in ensuring their children’s safety.
Taylor v Glasgow Corporation (1922)
The occupier was found liable after a child ate poisonous berries in a public garden. The berries acted as an allurement, and the occupier failed to provide adequate warnings.
3. Skilled Visitors - Under Section 2(3)(b) occupiers owe a duty to skilled workers and tradespeople, but these skilled visitors are expected to recognise and protect themselves from any risks inherent to their profession.
Roles v Nathan (1963)
Chimney sweeps were not protected by the occupier’s liability when they ignored a warning about carbon monoxide. As skilled professionals, they were expected to safeguard their own safety.
Discharging the Duty: How Occupiers Can Avoid Liability
Occupiers can avoid liability in certain situations, such as when harm is caused by an independent contractor or when adequate warnings are provided.
1. Independent Contractors - If harm is caused by an independent contractor’s negligence, occupiers can avoid liability if they acted reasonably when hiring and supervising the contractor.
Haseldine v Daws (1941)
The defendant had hired a contractor to maintain a lift, and when the lift malfunctioned, causing injury to a visitor, the court held the occupier was not liable. This case illustrates that occupiers can delegate duties to independent contractors, but they must still ensure that the contractor is competent and that the work is properly supervised.
A three-part test must be satisfied:
1. The defendant acted reasonably in trusting the contractor;
2. The defendant took reasonable steps to satisfy that the contractor was competent and;
3. The defendant took reasonable steps to inspect work.
All three parts must be satisfied for the occupier to pass liability to the independent contractor.
2. Warning Notices - An occupier can discharge their duty by providing adequate warnings of dangers present on the premises. However, these warnings must be sufficient to make the visitor reasonably safe.
English Heritage v Taylor (2016)
The occupier was found liable when a visitor fell into a moat because there was no proper warning sign. Even though the danger was visible from the site, the court ruled that the lack of a clear warning made the occupier liable.
Click below to download the FREE TeachLaw student activity pack.
Comments