OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY

Key Case Listing Summary

CASE FACTS LEGAL PRINCIPLE Statute

British Railways v Duty of common humanity towards trespassers
Herrington
Independent Contractors
Ferguson v Welsh Contractor licensed to enter premises was clothed with S.2(4)(b)
authority to invite subcontractors and employees
Gwilliam v West Duty to check whether the independent contractor had S.2(4)(b)
documentation (insurance cover) since this would be relevant
Hertfordshire to whether they were competent.
Haseldine v CA Daw & Sons Servicing a lift was technical work Hiring of a competent firm. D had no technical skills S.2(4)(b)

Woodward v mayor of Clearing ice from steps If nature of work is straightforward occupier expected to S.2(4)(b)
notice defects. No technical knowledge required
Hastings
Cunningham v Reading Supporters used loosened concrete A reasonably prudent occupier would have realised that the
from premises to hurl attacks concrete in the ground was dangerous because it might
Football Club supply a source of missiles and would have taken steps to
remove or minimise the risk.
Tomlinson v Congleton
Borough Council
Wheat v Lacon A person with sufficient degree of control over the premises.
There can be more than one occupier
Harris v Birkenhead Corp Occupier without physical possession – had legal control
CASE FACTS LEGAL PRINCIPLE Statute
The Carlgarth When you invite a person into your house to use the
staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters,
you invite him to use the staircase in the ordinary way in
which it is used.
Warnings
Darby v National Trust The risk to swimmers in the pond were perfectly obvious. S.2 (4) a
There was no duty to warn of an obvious risk
Edwards v London Borough C loses balance and fell over side of Adult visitors do not require warning for obvious risks. No S.2(4)(a)
ornamental footbridge while wheeling duty to protect a visitor against an obvious or remote risk S.2 (2)
Council bicycle
English Heritage v Taylor C fell down and unmarked sheer drop The danger was not obvious and there had been no warning S.2(4)(a)
of 12ft, sustaining serious head injuries sign. A sign warning of the drop would have likely influence
one’s behaviour
Westwood v Post Office Notice on door stating “only authorized attendant is
permitted to enter” was enough to inform the average
person that there was danger.

Children
Glasgow Corp v Taylor Boy dies after eating poisonous berries Occupier who is aware that something on his land would act S.2 (3) a
as an allurement to children must take greater care to
protect against the risk involved.
Jolley v Sutton Derelict boat was an allurement; damage was reasonable S.2 (3) a
foreseeable
Phipps v Rochester D entitled to assume that parents would be primarily S.2 (3) a
responsible for the safety and control of their children
Simkiss v Rhonda Borough Girls sliding down side of mountain on Sif parents do not consider the area dangerous it could not S.2 (3) a
a blanket, flew off 30ft bluff and be reasonable to expect occupiers to take more care than
injured. parents
Bowen v National Trust
CASE FACTS LEGAL PRINCIPLE Statute
Maloney v Lambeth Child fell from Something which poses no threat to an adult may be S.2 (3) a
dangerous to a child

Exercise of Calling (Special Skills)

Roles v Nathan Professional visitor’s duty to guard against special risks. Duty S.2 (3) b
discharged by warning S.2 (4) a
Ogwo v Taylor Duty of care owed to firemen. No requirement that the risk S.2 (3) b
be exceptional
Harvey v Plymouth City Duty to ensure land is safe for visitors to enter is limited to
the ordinary use of the land
Council
Lowery v Walker D awareness of the presence of people on his land and his
failure to stop or limit their actions amounted to an implied
licence to enter the property

Robert Addie v Dumbreck

Keown v Coventry Child injured on fire escape
Healthcare
G4S Care Services v Manley
Kiapasha v Laverton C slipped and fractured ankle on D wet
floor from rain. D had slip resistant
tiles and water absorbent mats
Revill v Newbury Young burglar attempting to steal from
D garden shed was shot. D not liable
Could not be regarded as “a danger due to the state of the S.2 (2)
premises” it was dangerous only because of the misusing.
Safe premises do not become unsafe simply because they are
attractive
Failure to restore electricity within a reasonable time S.2(2)
amounted to a breach of duty
D did all that could reasonably be expected of him to prevent S.2(2)
danger
Injury related to activity on the premises rather than on the
state of the premises

Ratcliffe V McConnell Failure to warn about one type of danger will not help C if S.1(4) OLA
subsequently suffer injury as a result of an unrelated danger. 1984
D took reasonable level of protection to reduce risks to
trespassers
CASE FACTS LEGAL PRINCIPLE Statute
Swain v Puri