Occupiers’ Liability 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. 

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. 

Museums and liability The individual and liability Contractors and liability The Occupiers Liability Act Why have a safety policy at all Constructing a safety policy Safety policy objectives Policy organization and arrangements Publicizing the policy... 

Chapter 31. This Act did not cover trespassers, now dealt with under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 (1984 Chapter 3). 

Furthermore, it also states that warning signs are not sufficient to relieve the construction site owner s liability from accidents. 2(4)(a) of the Occupiers Liability Act states that [where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in aU the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe . 

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 . 

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. 

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... 

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 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. 

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 ). 

---