Liability occupiers

A further key factor which has shaped the development of contaminated land policy has been the very active property market. This is particularly noticeable in the housing sector, where the UK has both a high proportion of owner-occupation and a rapid turnover of ownership in comparison with other countries. The ownership patterns of commercial land are also relevant. Much commercial land is held for investment purposes. But conversely in the case of smaller businesses, much of the financing of business operations is provided by short-term debt secured against the value of the property assets owned and occupied by the businesses. All of these factors have made questions of potential regulatory liabilities for land contamination politically and economically sensitive. 

Statutory nuisance. Under the statutory nuisance regime in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, liability fell in the first instance on the person responsible for the nuisance , this term being expanded to mean the person to whose act, default or sufferance the nuisance is attributable .26 Responsibility would pass to the owner or occupier of the premises if no such person could be found or if the nuisance arises from any defect of a structural nature .27... 

In these circumstances, liability under Part IIA passes to the owner or occupier for the time being of the contaminated land in question 33—the current owner or occupier. However, this passage of liability does not take place where the significant pollutant linkage involved has controlled waters as its receptor in a case of that kind, the liability becomes orphan and responsibility for funding remediation passes to the taxpayer. 

The definition of owner adopted in Part IIA3 5 is complicated, and reflects the progressive development of equivalent definitions in other regimes to prevent evasion and attempts to hide information about the ownership of land. For the same reason, the occupier is also potentially included within the net of liability—this is to deal with cases where the ownership of the land has been hidden. 

Chapter D of the statutory guidance provides a framework for allocating liabilities in cases where there are two or more persons falling within the heading of owner or occupier —there could, for example, be a linked series of leases over the same land, or the contaminated land could encompass more than one ownership plot. The guiding principle in the guidance is that, wherever possible, the allocation of liabilities should reflect the relative value of the capital interests in the land held by the various owners and occupiers. 

The Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 gives the authorities, under some circumstances, to clean up pollution and charge the work to the polluter or in many cases to the owner or occupier of the site. Although not being a liability act, this could be described, in a wide sense, as an absolute liability of a land own . 

In all types of coalmine accidents, gas explosion occupied the largest share of the major accidents (Coal Mine Safety Supervision Bureau of the State 2012). Except by using engineering technology such as technical equipment or skills to prevent the gas explosion, understanding the law of the accident can also help the people to avoid repetitive accidents. Accident analysis results showed that nearly 100% of gas explosions are liability accidents, and the direct cause is unsafe act. 

In addition, the Occupiers Liability Acts, 1957 and 1984, impose a duty of care on the occupier of premises—that is the person or body in control of the premises—for the safety of visitors. This requires measures to be taken to ensure that lawful visitors are safe when using the premises for the agreed purpose of the visit. Teachers must thus ensure that they and the pupils, as visitors, work within a safe environment during their lessons and other sanctioned activities by reporting any faults to the head teacher so that the governing body or LEA, as occupiers , may take action. 

The responsibility of occupiers of land to those who legally enter the premises is to be found in the Occupier s Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984. The 1957 Act covers both tortious and contractual liability. The basic obligation is that the occupier owes a common duty of care to see that the premises are reasonably safe for the purpose for which the visitor has been permitted to enter (s. 2). It is possible of course for any contract that may exist between the occupier and the visitor to state a higher duty of care than that of s. 2. But under the Act it was possible for the occupier to exclude this... 

The Occupier s Liability Act 1984 makes two important changes to the law. The original Act made no reference to the duty of an occupier to a trespasser. The courts were left to evolve their own rules to cater for this category of person. 

Section 4 is concerned with the various duties owed by those who have control of premises to those who are not their employees. Subsection (3) states that where such a person enters non-domestic premises by virtue of a contract or tenancy which creates an obligation for maintenance or repair or responsibility for the safety of or absence from risks to health arising from plant or substances in any such premises, then the person deemed to be in control owes a duty to see that reasonable measures are taken to ensure that such premises, plant or substances are safe and without risks to the health of the person entering. This section therefore would provide that safety standards be extended to someone who enters a cinema (contract) or enters a factory to inspect machinery (licensee) in addition to the other aim of the Act which is concerned with the safety of employees. It should be noted that liability is on the person who has control over premises or who can be described as an occupier and that case law shows that more than one person can be in that position Wheat v. Lacon Co. Ltd ). 

Law of Contract as it relates to relations between employers and employees suppliers and customers owners/occupiers of premises and visitors unfair contract terms in relation to civil and statutory liability for possible injury. 

Lead paint screening and mandated attention to lead paint hazards where appropriate had also been developed in various states. In 1973, Massachusetts enacted a relatively stringent and actively enforced lead paint abatement law, the two core features of which were (1) lead paint or other lead hazard abatement in any homes built before 1978 and occupied by children younger than 6 years of age and (2) property owners are legally responsible (strict liability) for lead toxic injury of lead-exposed children (Klein, 1977). Additional strictures within the law included comprehensive inspections of the interior and exterior of homes with lead-poisoned children permanent removal or covering of lead paint on all chewable and accessible surfaces to a height of 5 ft and on all window surfaces subject to impact, i.e., frictional surfaces removal of loose and peeling lead paint from areas ... 

The common law duty of care owed to visitors by an occupier in respect of premises is now statutory and was clarified in the Occupier s Liability Act 1957 which ended the previous (often subtle) distinction between persons invited to enter (called invitees) and those allowed to enter (licensees), a distinction which previously affected the standard of duty. Under the 1957 Act, both categories are visitors to whom an occupier owes the common duty of care once the relationship of occupier and visitor is established. The duty is 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 to be there. An example is Cunningham V. Reading Football Clulfi. Due to the football club s failure to maintain its terraces, football hooligans were able to use lumps of masonry as missiles. A policeman on duty at the club was injured and successfully sued that club. 

The Occupier s Liability Act 1984 now applies to persons other than visitors. As well as trespassers, this category also includes persons merely exercising a right of way across premises. The 1984 Act provides that there is a duty owed to uninvited entrants if the occupier has reasonable grounds to believe a danger exists on his premises and the consequent risk is one against which, in all the circumstances, he/she may reasonably be expected to provide some protection. 

Occupational Safety and Health Act 1970 (USA) 429 Occupier s Liability Act 1957 90,154,161,165 Occupier s Liability Act 1984 43, 90, 91,154,165 Packaging Essential Requirements Regulations 1998 922 Packaging, Labelling and Carriage of Radioactive Material by Rail Regulations 1996 842... 

---