The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) governs the duty owed by occupiers of premises to their lawful visitors. Under s.2(1), an occupier owes a "common duty of care" to all visitors.
An occupier is anyone who has a sufficient degree of control over premises (Wheat v E Lacon & Co [1966] AC 552). There can be more than one occupier of the same premises. Premises are broadly defined and include land, buildings, fixed and moveable structures, vessels, vehicles, and aircraft (s.1(3)).
A visitor is anyone who enters with the occupier's express or implied permission, including those entering under a contract, those with a legal right of entry (e.g., police with a warrant), and those using a public or private right of way.
The Common Duty of Care
Under s.2(2), the common duty of care is "a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there."
Children: An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults (s.2(3)(a)). An allurement that attracts children may increase the duty (Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44). However, very young children may be expected to be accompanied by a responsible adult (Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450).
Skilled visitors: An occupier may expect that a person entering in the exercise of their calling will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to that calling (s.2(3)(b)). For example, a window cleaner is expected to appreciate the risks of working at height (Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117).
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (OLA 1984) governs the duty owed to non-visitors (primarily trespassers). Under s.1(3), a duty arises where: (a) the occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists, (b) the occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the non-visitor is in the vicinity of the danger, and (c) the risk is one against which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection.
The duty under s.1(4) is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the non-visitor does not suffer injury by reason of the danger. This is a lower standard than the common duty of care under OLA 1957.
Under OLA 1984, the occupier can discharge the duty by taking reasonable steps to warn of the danger or discourage persons from incurring the risk (s.1(5)). Notably, the 1984 Act does not allow recovery for property damage — only personal injury.
Defences
Warnings (OLA 1957): Under s.2(4)(a), a warning does not automatically discharge the duty — it must be sufficient to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe. A sign saying "Danger" alone may be insufficient; the warning must be specific enough to allow the visitor to take protective action.
Volenti (OLA 1957): Under s.2(5), the occupier has no liability where the visitor willingly accepted the risk. This is a complete defence.
Contributory negligence: Available under both Acts, reducing damages proportionally.
Exclusion of liability (OLA 1957): An occupier may restrict or exclude liability by agreement or notice, subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (which prevents exclusion of liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence) and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for consumer visitors.
Key Cases
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Wheat v E Lacon & Co(1966) | An occupier is anyone with sufficient degree of control over premises |
| Roles v Nathan(1963) | Skilled visitors expected to guard against risks incident to their calling |
| Tomlinson v Congleton BC(2003) | No duty under OLA 1984 where risk was obvious and freely accepted |
| Glasgow Corporation v Taylor(1922) | Allurements on premises increase the duty of care owed to children |
Exam Tips
Exam Tip
Always start by identifying whether the claimant is a visitor (OLA 1957) or a non-visitor/trespasser (OLA 1984). This determines which statute applies and the standard of care owed. Then check whether any defences apply — warnings, volenti, or contributory negligence.
Common Mistake
Students often forget that OLA 1984 only covers personal injury, not property damage. If a trespasser's property is damaged, they have no claim under the 1984 Act. Also, remember that children who trespass are covered by OLA 1984, not 1957.