An occupier is anyone who has a sufficient degree of control over the premises to ensure others’ safety.

• Wheat v Lacon [1966] – both a landlord and tenant could be occupiers; more than one person can owe the duty.

• Occupation depends on control, not ownership or occupation in the everyday sense.

Premises include land, buildings, and fixed or movable structures such as vehicles, scaffolding, or ladders (s.1(3)(a) 1957 Act).

The 1957 Act covers lawful visitors — people who have permission (express or implied) to enter the premises.

(a) Common Duty of Care (s.2(2))

Occupiers owe a “common duty of care” to lawful visitors:

"To take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the visitor will be reasonably safe while using the premises for the purpose for which they were invited or permitted."

The duty concerns safety of the visitor, not the premises’ physical state (Darby v National Trust [2001]).

(b) Types of Visitor

• Invitees and licensees: traditional categories merged into “lawful visitors.”

• Contractual entrants: e.g. paying guests or customers.

• Those entering by right of law: e.g. police officers, firefighters.

(c) Special Rules

• Children: Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults (s.2(3)(a)).

  • Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] – berries in a public park attracted children; liability found.

  • Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] – parents should also supervise young children.

• Persons exercising a trade or calling: Occupiers can expect professionals to guard against risks incidental to their work (s.2(3)(b)).

  • Roles v Nathan [1963] – chimney sweeps ignored warnings about carbon monoxide; no liability.

(d) Warnings and Exclusions

A warning can discharge the duty if it makes the visitor reasonably safe (s.2(4)(a)).

• Rae v Mars (UK) Ltd [1990] – a simple warning was insufficient where danger was extreme.

Occupiers may limit or exclude liability using clear contractual terms, subject to UCTA 1977 and Consumer Rights Act 2015.

(e) Independent Contractors

Occupiers may avoid liability for the negligence of independent contractors if:

1. It was reasonable to entrust the work to them;

2. Reasonable steps were taken to ensure competence; and

3. The work was properly inspected if appropriate (s.2(4)(b); Haseldine v Daw & Son Ltd [1941]).

The 1984 Act extended a limited duty to people entering without permission. It balances fairness with property rights.

(a) Duty of Care — s.1(3)

An occupier owes a duty to a trespasser only if:

1. They are aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists;

2. They know or have reasonable grounds to believe a trespasser may come into the area of danger; and

3. The risk is one they might reasonably be expected to protect against.

(b) Scope of the Duty — s.1(4)

The duty is to take reasonable care to prevent injury, not to ensure complete safety.

• Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] – no liability when claimant dived into a lake despite warnings; risk arose from his own actions.

• Ratcliff v McConnell [1999] – no liability for a student who climbed a locked gate and dived into a swimming pool at night.

(c) Warnings and Consent

Warnings can discharge the duty (s.1(5)), and if a trespasser voluntarily accepts the risk, there is no liability (s.1(6)).