Occupier of premises

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 1957 Act defines the duty owed by the occupiers of premises to all persons lawfully on the premises in respect of ... 

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. 

Owners and occupiers of premises, who have maintenance and repair responsibilities for those premises, have a duty to assess them for the presence of asbestos and the condition of that asbestos. Where asbestos is present the duty holder must ensure that the risk from the asbestos is assessed, that a written plan identifying where that asbestos is located is prepared, and that measures to manage the risk from the asbestos are set out in that plan and are implemented. Other parties have a legal duty to co-operate with the duty holder. 

The 1957 Act concerns the duty that the occupier of premises has towards visitors in relation to the condition of the premises and to things which have or have not been done to them. The Act imposes ... 

An occupier of premises (the person who has control over the premises, venue or site) owes a duty of care to all their lawful visitors to ensure that they will be reasonably... 

Direct costs, sometimes referred to as insured costs, are largely concerned with an organisation s liabilities as an employer and occupier of premises. Direct costs are covered by premiums paid to an insurance company to provide cover against claims made by an injured party. Premiums paid are determined, to some extent, by the claims history of the organisation and the risks involved in the business activities. 

Has a good neighbour policy been established with occupiers of premises in the immediate vicinity of the site ... 

That the notice might lawfully have been served on some person instead of, or in addition to, the appellant, being the owner or occupier of the premises from which the noise is emitted or would be emitted, and that it would have been equitable for it to have been so served. 

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... 

The company store. Additional benefits with readily calculated dollar values come from the stores operated by large pharmaceutical companies. The companies make their own products available at substantial discounts to employees. Not only prescription drugs but over-the-coimter remedies, cosmetics, medical devices, and eye-care products are stocked. Other establishments that serve employees occupy company premises and include hair salons and credit unions. With nearly all the services of commercial banks, credit unions offer competitive interest rates for automobile loans, mortgages, checking and saving accounts, and certificates of deposit. 

Should the fire authority be of the opinion that, in the event of fire, the use of premises involves or will involve so serious a risk to persons on the premises that continuing use ought to be prohibited or restricted, the authority may serve a Prohibition Notice on the occupier. There are rights of appeal against these notices (ss. 10-1 OB). 

An application for a fire certificate should be made by the responsible person (that is, the person having control of the premises who may or may not be the occupier). The particulars to be included in an application are listed in schedule 2 of the Regulations. Such matters as address and description of premises, nature of processes carried on, nature and quantities of explosives or highly flammable substances and maximum number of persons likely to be in any building are to be included. If required the applicant must furnish plans, not only of the premises to be covered by the certificate but also of adjoining premises. 

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... 

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 ). 

Assembly points should be established for use in the event of evacuation. It should be in a position, preferably under cover, which is unlikely to be affected at the time of fire. In some cases it may be necessary to make mutual arrangements with the client or occupiers of nearby premises. 

Many of the site controls have been covered earlier in this chapter (Section 7.2 - General hazards and controls). Site controls can be conveniently subdivided under four headings - site planning, site preparation, site security and the arrangements with the client and/or occupier of the premises. 

A further ACoP, The management of asbestos in non-domestic premises (LI 27), deals specifically with the management of asbestos in buildings. It relates solely to Regulation 4 and is aimed at the owners and occupiers of workplace premises. 

As part of the management plan required by Regulation 4 of CAW, occupiers or owners of premises have an obligation to inform any person liable to disturb asbestos-containing materials, including maintenance workers, about the presence and condition of such materials. 

Since 1988 the potentially wide scope of the duty of care has been narrowed so that there are now four indicators foresight of damage, proximity of the defendant to the plaintiff, policy and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty. A court will not necessarily refer to them all in the same case, but will look at the particular relationship. An important one is that of employer and employee. The duty of care owed to an employee is an implied term of the contract of employment (see section 1.1.19.4). In respect of premises, the common law duty of care owed by the occupier is now statutory (see section 1.1.19.5). 

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. 

Occupiers having overall control of premises also have duties to ensure the safety of persons while on the premises, e.g. a council allowing organisations/persons to utilise council land (parks) for which they have overall control are responsible for all persons coming onto them, so far as is reasonably practicable. 

Occupiers also have a duty under the Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 and 1984. The original 1957 Act places a duty upon those in control of premises to ensure that any visitor is reasonably safe, having been invited or permitted by the occupier to be there. This duty includes children for whom there is a higher duty of care. The Act does also require that any person on site also acts in a reasonable manner. 

Establishing a maintenance scheme can fall on a number of responsible persons either individually or together. These include the employer or occupier of the premise or any other premises forming part of the building, or dependent upon contract terms of the owner or management company. 

The level of responsibility and accountability of the fire safety manager will need to reflect the organisation however, any safety management structure should provide for clear lines of responsibility, authority, accountability and resources, in particular in relation to common areas within multiple occupied buildings/premises. 

---