Summiya Owais

A2

Occupiers are liable for their negligent act.To what extent do

you agree with the statement.

Under the Occupant Liability Act of 1957, torts are obliged to pay attention to their
visitors. Sec1(3) de nes the site as land, buildings, and "including any xed or
movable structure". Ship, Vehicle, or Aircraft sec2(2) de nes the scope of the duty
of care and states: Users must take reasonable care to ensure that visitors are
reasonably safe when using the facility. For the purpose he was invited to. Lord
Denning de ned the occupiers at Wheat v Racon [1966]. He explained: It should
be noted that if not paid enough attention on his side, it can cause complete injury
to a person. In this case, the defendant was found to have the following
obligations: Even if the manager runs the inn, he takes care of the paid guests.
Harris vs. Birkenhead (1976) The local government was considered an occupier,
but did not take ownership property.

A visitor is someone who has express or implied permission from the occupier
to enter the premises.Legitimate visitor If he goes beyond the scope of the
invitation, he could become an intruder,Smith WC (1987) Park.A young man
staying at Holiday Park gets over the fence I got hurt.Plaintiff became an
intruder when he entered the exclusion zone.

Lord Atkin's foresight test in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] is closely related

to the duty of care owed. The claimant in Laverton v Kiapasha [2002] slipped
on the wet oor of the defendant's takeaway shop on a rainy evening. The
defendant was not held liable because expecting the oor to be dry at all
times was unreasonable. Scrutton LJ stated in The Calgrath [1927], "When
you invite someone to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down
the bannister." Ward v Ritz Hotel (1992) held the occupier liable when a guest
fell off the hotel balcony due to the hotel failing to meet British Standards
safety guidelines.

Warning signs are insuf cient for very young children, according to section
2(3)(a), and extra precautions are required when children are involved. A
young boy died after eating poisonous berries in Glasgow Corp v Taylor
[1922]. Because berries were appealing to small children, the defendant was
held liable even though the child was a trespasser. According to Section 2 (4)
(a), warning adult visitors about the danger may be suf cient if the warning
sign is clear enough.
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
According to Section 2(3)(b), an adult who enters a premises in the exercise
of his particular trade must protect himself from the risks associated with that
trade. Two chimney sweepers died of carbon monoxide poisoning while
cleaning the defendant's boiler in Roles v Nathan (1963). Because the
defendants were specialists who had been warned of the danger, they were
not held liable. However, as Lord Denning pointed out, the outcome would
have been different if the sweeps were killed because the stairs leading to the
basement collapsed; only a risk relevant to the trade in question can allow the
occupier to avoid liability.

The OLA 1957 is covered by the UCTA 1977. An occupier is not liable for the
faulty work of an independent contractor, according to Section 2(4) of the OLA
1957. According to Ferguson y Welsh (1987), an occupier would only be held
liable if he agreed to the unsafe working methods of the independent
contractor. In Haseldine v Daw (1941), the occupier was not held liable when
the lift broke due to the engineering company's faulty work. Section 2(5) of
the OLA 1957 states that an occupier is not liable if the visitor is aware of the
risk and willingly accepts it. A spectator was injured during a racing event in
White v Blackmore (1972) when a car rammed into a fence. Despite the
warning sign, the defence of volenti non t injuria failed because the visitor
did not understand the nature of the risk involved and thus could not have
willingly accepted it. According to Section 2(6), a person who enters a
premise to exercise a legal right is only a visitor for that purpose.

The OLA 1957 is used by the UCTA 1977. According to Section 2(1) of the
UCTA 1977, liability for death or physical injury caused by negligence cannot
be excluded. Section 2(2) of the UCTA 1977 states that one can exclude
liability for property damage if the clause meets the reasonableness test
outlined in Section 11(1) of the UCTA 1977.

When there are multiple occupiers, both can be held liable, as in the case of
Collier v AWA [1983]. Any injury caused to a rescuer attempting to save the
life of a lawful visitor will be the responsibility of the occupier. In the case of
Baker v. Hopkins (1959). Toxic fumes accumulated at the bottom of a well
due to a manager's negligence.A doctor died while attempting to rescue
workers from the well, and the manager was held accountable. When a two-
year-old boy fell onto a railway line in Videan v TC (1963), his father jumped
in to save him. The occupier was held liable because it was foreseeable that
a rescuer would be injured during the rescue. The defence of volenti non t
injuria is unlikely to succeed against rescuers [Haynes v Harwood, 1936;
Cutler v United Diaries, 1933].
fi
fi
Visitors under the OLA 1957 are those who exercise a public or private right
of way. C tripped into a hole and was injured on a public right of way in
McGeown v NIHE [1994]. The House of Lords dismissed her appeal, ruling
that she did not qualify as a visitor under the OLA 1957. In Stone v Taffe
[1974], an occupier was held liable despite instructing his employee not to
allow visitors after closing time.In Glaister and Others v Appleby-in-
Westmorland Town Council [2009], the claimant was injured as a result of the
actions of a third party during a Council-organized fair. The defendant was not
held liable because imposing liability on event organisers would discourage
others from volunteering their time and energy to bene t the community. This
will foster a culture of compensation.

An occupier has a duty under the OLA 1984 to take such reasonable care as
is reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that non-visitors coming onto his
premises do not suffer injury on the premises 'by reason of any danger due to
the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them'.
Trespassers and those exercising public and private rights of way are
examples of non-visitors.A trespasser is someone who enters land without
permission and whose presence there is either unknown to the occupier or
objected to. Trespassers include not only burglars and squatters, but also
those who inadvertently enter the occupier's territory. One signi cant
difference between the 1957 and 1984 Acts is that the latter only allows
claims for death or personal injury; trespassers, unlike visitors, cannot claim
for property damage.

Prior to the passage of the OLA 1984, judges ruled in the case of BRB y
Herrington 1972 that an occupier owed trespassers a "duty of common
humanity" to protect them from known risks or harm. The previous Addie v
Dumbreck (1929) decision was overturned. When a child trespassed onto the
rail lines and was electrocuted, British Railways was held liable. The OLA
1984 has now superseded the Herrington Rule.

According to Section 1(3), an occupier owes a duty of care to a non-visitor if

he has reasonable grounds to believe that the non-visitor may come into
contact with a hazard and it is practicable to take reasonable precautions to
prevent harm. According to Section 1(4), what constitutes reasonable care is
determined by the nature of the risk and the cost of taking precautions.
According to Section 1(5), warning signs are adequate for adults but
ineffective against very young children. Section 1(6) states that adult non-
visitors who ignore warning signs can invoke the defence of volenti non t
injuria.
fi
fi
fi
Although it is unclear whether the UCTA 1977 applies to the OLA 1984,
common sense dictates that if the UCTA 1977 applies to the OLA 1957, it
should also apply to the OLA 1984. According to section 2(1), liability for
death or bodily harm caused by negligence cannot be excluded.

White was injured when he fell into a trench on the defendant's land in White
v St. Albans |1990). The defendants were not held liable because they had
fenced off the land and thus had no reasonable grounds to believe that
anyone was in the vicinity of the danger. A trespasser went swimming in a
harbour and was injured by an underwater obstacle in Donoghue v
Folkestone Properties Ltd. [2003]. The defendant was not held liable because
he had no reason to believe that someone would swim at night in mid-
winter.The House of Lords held the defendant liable in Jolly v SLBC (2000)
when children were injured on his boat. It was obvious that the boat would
attract children, and if it was not removed, injuries could occur.

The defences of volenti non t injuria and contributory negligence may be

successful against adults, but not against very young children. In Scott v ABP
[1999], the occupier was not held liable for injuries suffered by teenage boys
because the boys understood and accepted the nature of the risk involved
(defence of volenti non t injuria succeeded). The court considered the level
of comprehension that a reasonable boy of the claimant's age would have
been expected to have. Even if there had been a fence on the property, the
boys would not have been deterred from entering.In Ratcliffe v McConnell
[1998], a drunken 19-year-old disregarded a warning sign and dove into a
winter-closed pool.The defendant was not held liable for held because the
trespasser should have been aware of the danger.

In Tomlinson v CBC & Others [2003], an 18-year-old disregarded a warning

sign and dove into a lake's shallow end. The Court of Appeal held the
occupier liable because, despite the signs, it was common for people to swim
in the lake. The House of Lords, on the other hand, rejected his approach. It
stated that in order to be held liable under the OLA 1984, there had to be a
danger on the occupier's premises caused by "the state of the premises or
things done or omitted to be done on them." Because the defendant can
successfully raise the defence of volenti non t injuria, the occupier is not
liable for injuries caused by adults voluntarily taking an obvious risk.

Following Tomlinson v CBC & Another, the defendant was held liable in Young
v KCC (2005] when a 12-year-old fell down a brittle skylight. It was claimed
that the defendant would have been held liable if the claimant had not been a
young boy. The Marsden family was staying at a Caravan Park when their
fi
fi
fi
two-year-old wandered away without his mother's notice and drowned in the
pond in Bourne Leisure v Marsden (2009). Despite the fact that the pond was
not fenced in, the defendant was not held liable because the parents were
warned of the danger.

In Yachuk v Oliver (1949), the boy was not held liable for contributory
negligence because he was too young to comprehend the gravity of the
situation, and he was also not held liable for his own negligence. In Reville v
Newbury [1996], the occupier was held liable under negligence law rather
than the OLA 1984 when he shot at a trespasser. The contributory negligence
defence was successful because the trespasser's own negligence contributed
to the damage he suffered. Under civil law, the occupier can also raise the
defence of self-defence, but it will only succeed if the occupier uses
reasonable force to defend his property and person.However, according to
section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the householder will not be held
liable for trespass to person unless the force used in self-defence is 'grossly
disproportionate' in light of the given the circumstances. This provision was
enacted in part in response to claims that homeowners were afraid to
confront burglars for fear of being sued later.

According to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, people exercising
the right to 'roam' are covered by the OLA 1984, but they are owed a more
limited duty than other trespassers. Occupier will not be liable for injuries
caused by natural features or crossing fences unless the occupier
intentionally or recklessly created a danger. As a result, the law does not
impose an undue burden on the occupier.