Occupiers’ Liability CASES
In English law, occupiers’ liability governs the duties owed by those who control premises to people who come onto the land. Two statutes set the framework: the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (duties to lawful visitors) and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (a narrower duty to persons other than visitors, including trespassers). The focus is on control of the premises rather than ownership.
Definition and principles
An occupier is the person (or persons) with sufficient control over premises to put them under a duty of care. “Premises” is wide and includes land, buildings, fixed or moveable structures, and things like vessels or vehicles. Liability turns on what is reasonable in the circumstances, taking account of the nature of the danger, the visitor, and the cost and practicality of precautions.
Who is an occupier and what are premises?
There may be multiple occupiers at the same time (for example, landlord and tenant, or principal and contractor) if each exercises control. The statutory definition of premises includes any fixed or moveable structure; this can extend duties to places such as scaffolding, platforms, or moored vessels where control is exercised.
Lawful visitors (1957 Act)
Occupiers owe the “common duty of care”: to take such care as is reasonable to see that visitors will be reasonably safe for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted to be there. The standard is objective and context-sensitive.
- Children: occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults; features attractive to children may require extra precautions.
- Skilled visitors: tradespeople are expected to guard against risks ordinarily incident to their calling, but not risks created by hidden dangers outside their expertise.
- Warnings: a clear warning can make a visitor reasonably safe if it enables them to be careful; a bare “enter at your own risk” is often insufficient if the danger remains unavoidable.
- Independent contractors: an occupier who reasonably engages competent contractors, and (where appropriate) checks their work, may avoid liability for dangers arising from that specialist work.
- Contract and notices: liability can be extended, restricted or excluded by agreement or notice, but consumer and unfair terms legislation limits exclusions for negligence causing death or personal injury.
Trespassers and other non-visitors (1984 Act)
The duty is more limited. It arises only if the occupier (i) knows or has reasonable grounds to believe there is a danger, (ii) knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that someone may come into the vicinity of the danger, and (iii) the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances, the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection. If the duty arises, the occupier must take reasonable care to see that the non-visitor is not injured by reason of the danger.
- Obvious risks and recreational spaces: the law is cautious about imposing liability for obvious natural features or ordinary risks inherent in activities voluntarily undertaken by adults in parks or open water.
- Warnings and steps: simple measures—signage, barriers, or targeted maintenance—may be sufficient where risks are obvious and inexpensive to address.
- Children trespassers: their curiosity is relevant to what protection is reasonable, especially where dangers are concealed or alluring.
Common examples
- Injury from defective steps, loose handrails, spilt substances, or poor lighting in shops, venues, or workplaces.
- Construction sites or industrial premises where hazards are accessible to visitors or foreseeable trespassers.
- Recreational areas with open water, steep banks, or structures inviting climbing; the response depends on how obvious and controllable the risk is.
- Damage caused by temporary installations (stages, scaffolds, platforms) placed under the occupier’s control.
Legal implications
- Claims turn on reasonableness, foreseeability, and control. Documentation—risk assessments, inspection and cleaning records, maintenance logs—often decides cases.
- Multiple occupiers may share liability; contribution and indemnity can be sought between them and any negligent contractors.
- Defences include volenti non fit injuria (true consent) and contributory negligence. For consumers, attempts to exclude liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence are generally ineffective.
- Remedies include damages and, where ongoing, injunctive relief to remove or mitigate hazards. Limitation for personal injury is generally three years from the date of injury or date of knowledge.
Practical importance
For claimants, identify the precise danger, who controlled it, and what simple precautions were available. For defendants, show a proportionate safety system: regular inspections, responsive maintenance, clear warnings, and competent use of contractors. Context matters: the law aims to balance safety with reasonable freedom to use land for work and recreation.
See also: Negligence; Public nuisance; Trespass; Rylands v Fletcher; Volenti non fit injuria; Independent contractors; Warnings and disclaimers; Limitation.
Home » Occupiers' Liability
A paying guest died after falling down an unlit staircase in a pub's private quarters. The House of Lords established that 'occupation' under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 relates to control, and that multiple parties (here, the brewery and manager) can be concurrent occupiers. Facts The respondents, E. Lacon & Co. Ltd., a brewery company, owned a public house, ‘The Golfer’s Arms’. They entered into a service agreement with Mr. Richardson to manage the pub. Mr. and Mrs. Richardson occupied a private flat on the first floor but were not tenants. The agreement permitted them to take in paying guests.
A man became tetraplegic after diving into a shallow lake at a country park, despite clear warning signs. The House of Lords ruled the council was not liable, as the obvious danger arose from the claimant's own voluntary actions, not the state of the premises. Facts The claimant, Mr John Tomlinson, then aged 18, visited Brereton Heath Country Park, owned and occupied by Congleton Borough Council. In a reckless act, he performed a shallow dive into a lake (a former sand quarry) and struck his head on the sandy bottom. The impact severed his spinal cord, resulting in tetraplegia. The
Owners of a derelict cinema were sued after vandals started a fire that damaged neighbouring property. The House of Lords held the owners were not liable, establishing there is no general duty of care to prevent harm caused by third parties' deliberate wrongdoing. Facts The defenders, Littlewoods Organisation Ltd, purchased a cinema in Hamilton in 1976 with the intention of demolishing it and replacing it with a supermarket. While awaiting the necessary permissions, the cinema was left unoccupied and unattended. The property was frequently broken into by children and vandals, a fact known to the defenders’ employees. However, the defenders
An occupier of land was held liable for flooding caused by a blocked pipe laid by a trespasser. The court found they 'continued' and 'adopted' the nuisance, as they knew of the pipe's existence and failed to maintain it. Facts The respondents, the trustees of a religious society, occupied land that had a ditch on its boundary. Without the respondents’ knowledge, a local council, acting as a trespasser, laid a 15-inch pipe in this ditch to carry away water. The work was poorly executed, as no guard or grate was placed at the pipe’s inlet, creating a risk that it
An 11-year-old boy fell from a fire escape at a hospital while trespassing. The Court of Appeal held the hospital was not liable, as the injury resulted from the boy's dangerous activity, not a defect in the premises. Facts The claimant, an 11-year-old boy, climbed the underside of an external steel fire escape on the grounds of a hospital owned and occupied by the defendant, the Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust. He was attempting to show off to his friends. While climbing, he fell from a height of over 30 feet and suffered significant brain damage and brachial plexus injuries. The
Two teenage boys were seriously injured when a derelict boat they were attempting to repair fell on them. The boat was abandoned on council land. The House of Lords held the council liable, establishing that the risk of injury was foreseeable. Facts The claimant, Justin Jolley, a 14-year-old boy, sustained severe spinal injuries resulting in paraplegia. The accident occurred when a small, abandoned cabin cruiser, left lying on a grassed area on an estate owned by the defendant, the London Borough of Sutton, fell on him. The boat had been derelict and in a dangerous condition for at least two
A claimant who sustained a severe spinal injury after attempting to slide down a pub's bannister sued the occupier. The court found the pub was not liable, as the risk of falling was obvious and the claimant had voluntarily chosen to accept it. Facts The claimant, Ms Sarah Geary, was attending a post-work gathering at ‘The Union’, a JD Wetherspoon pub in Norwich. The pub featured a grand open staircase with low bannisters. At the end of the evening, in a moment she described as a ‘bit of fun’, Ms Geary decided to slide down the bannister. She lost her
A hotel guest was injured by a broken tile in his room. The hotel relied on a contractual clause to exclude liability. The Supreme Court found the clause was unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and held the hotel liable. Facts The respondent, Mr Stevens, was a paying guest at a hotel owned and operated by the first appellant, Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd. Upon using the bathroom in his designated room, Mr Stevens sustained a severe laceration to his foot from a broken and sharp floor tile. The injury required surgical intervention and resulted in a permanent
