ABSTRACT

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (lawful visitors) Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922) The occupier must expect children to be less cautious than adults, has a higher standard of care, and must avoid ‘allurements’

Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955) But can expect parents to be responsible for very young children

Roles v Nathan (1963) The occupier can rely on the skill and knowledge of people entering to exercise a trade or calling to avoid risks associated with the work

Haseldine v Daw (1941) The occupier is not liable for the work done by independent contractors if it was reasonable to hire them, a competent contractor is chosen and the work is checked if the nature of the work allows

Staples v West Dorset DC (1995) The occupier may use warning signs to avoid liability but has no need when the danger is obvious to a reasonable man

White v Blakemore (1972) Consent is only a defence where the visitor freely accepts the actual risk

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (trespassers) BR Board v Herrington (1972) Introduced the ‘common duty of humanity’ through common law

Tomlinson v Congleton BC (2003) The Act can apply if the danger is due to the state of the premises, and is the sort of risk that the defendant should have guarded against and one that the trespasser in fact chose to run

Ratcliffe v McConnell (1999) Volenti applies and liability is avoided if the claimant freely accepted the actual risk of harm

Defi nition of ‘occupier’ Wheat v Lacon (1966) A person who is in actual control of the premises when the damage occurs

Key Facts A pub manager was allowed to rent out rooms in his private quarters even though he was not the owner. An action arose because a paying guest fell on an unlit staircase, although as it was later identified, a stranger had removed the bulb so there was no liability on either the pub manager or the brewery.