Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957, duties

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. 

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. 

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 ). 

---