Lesson 121. Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 | OCR A-Level Law
For Specification H418
OCR A-Level Law | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 40 minutes
This Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 A-Level Law revision page introduces liability owed by occupiers to lawful visitors. OCR requires you to define a lawful visitor, explain the duty owed under the 1957 Act and determine when that duty has been breached. You also need to recognise who counts as an occupier, what can amount to premises and how the standard changes when the visitor is a child. The OCR specification separates lawful visitors under the 1957 Act from trespassers under the 1984 Act.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define a lawful visitor for the purposes of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
Identify an occupier and premises.
Explain the common duty of care owed to lawful visitors.
Explain how the purpose and scope of the visitor's permission affect the duty.
Explain the standard of care owed to child visitors.
Apply the Act to factual scenarios and reach a supported conclusion about breach.
Revision Notes 📚
What is occupiers’ liability?
Occupiers’ liability concerns the responsibility of a person in control of premises towards people who enter those premises.
OCR divides the topic between two Acts:
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, covering lawful visitors
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, covering trespassers.
This lesson focuses only on the 1957 Act.
The basic structure is:
Occupier + premises + lawful visitor → common duty of care → has that duty been breached?
Defences and other ways in which liability may be limited are considered separately in defences for lawful visitors [Lesson 122. Defences under the 1957 Act].
The three starting questions
Before deciding whether an occupier is liable, identify three things:
Who is the occupier?
Are there premises?
Is the claimant a lawful visitor?
Only then should you apply the duty under the 1957 Act.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme describes these as important definitional prerequisites to liability.
Who is an occupier?
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 does not simply make the owner of property automatically responsible.
Under s1(2), the common-law rules are used to decide who is an occupier.
The key idea is control or possession of the premises.
OCR identifies Wheat v Lacon as the principal authority and describes an occupier as a person with a sufficient degree of control or possession. There may also be more than one occupier of the same premises.
Therefore:
Ownership can be evidence of occupation, but control is the crucial issue.
Why control matters
Occupiers’ liability places responsibility on the person who is sufficiently able to control the premises and the risks associated with them.
When applying the rule, ask:
Who controls what happens on the premises?
Who has possession?
Who is in a position to take precautions?
Do not simply write:
“D owns the building, therefore D is the occupier.”
A stronger answer is:
“D owns and controls the premises and is therefore likely to be an occupier.”
More than one occupier
The principle from Wheat v Lacon also means that there can be more than one occupier.
This is important because several people or organisations may exercise sufficient control over different aspects of premises.
For OCR purposes, remember:
Occupier does not necessarily mean one person and does not necessarily mean the legal owner.
The question is whether D has the necessary degree of control or possession.
What are premises?
The Act applies to premises.
OCR identifies s1(3)(a) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and describes premises broadly as including a fixed or movable structure.
Wheeler v Copas is identified by OCR as authority supporting a wide interpretation of premises.
This means that premises should not be understood as meaning only:
houses
shops
permanent buildings.
The statutory concept is wider.
💡 Exam point: If a question clearly involves a building, farm, hotel or similar location, premises may be straightforward. Briefly establish the point and move on rather than spending several paragraphs proving the obvious.
What is a lawful visitor?
A lawful visitor is someone who has permission or another lawful basis to be on the premises.
OCR assessment materials identify lawful visitors as including people with:
an express licence
an implied licence
a contractual right to enter
a legal right of entry.
The 1957 Act applies because the claimant has a lawful basis for being there.
Express permission
An express licence exists where permission to enter has been communicated expressly.
The permission may determine:
where the person may go
why they may be there
the extent of their permitted visit.
The exact scope of that permission can become important because the common duty of care applies to the purposes for which the visitor is invited or permitted to be on the premises.
Implied permission
Permission does not always need to be given in explicit words.
A person may have an implied licence from the circumstances.
OCR's 2022 assessment treated a customer using a pub as a lawful visitor with at least an implied licence to be on the premises.
For example, where a business opens its premises to customers, the circumstances may imply permission to enter the areas provided for customer use.
The important point is that the visitor's presence is permitted, even though nobody personally says:
“You may enter.”
Contractual visitors
A person may also have a contractual right or contractual licence to be on the premises.
OCR's 2022 mark scheme treated a specialist cleaner carrying out work for the occupier as a lawful visitor with a contractual basis for being on the premises.
The key question remains whether C is lawfully present for the purpose in question.
Legal rights of entry
Some people have a right to enter premises because the law gives them authority to do so.
OCR materials identify legal rights of entry as another category of lawful visitor and give police and fire services as examples.
The occupier's personal invitation is therefore not the only route to lawful-visitor status.
Lawful visitors at a glance
Type of lawful visitor | Basis for entry |
Express licensee | D has expressly permitted entry |
Implied licensee | Permission arises from the circumstances |
Contractual visitor | C has a contractual basis for entering |
Person with a legal right of entry | The law provides authority to enter |
In a problem question, identify why the claimant is lawful rather than merely saying:
“C is a visitor.”
A lawful visitor can become a trespasser
Lawful status has limits.
A visitor who goes outside the area, purpose or permission for which they were allowed onto the premises may cease to be a lawful visitor.
OCR's specimen assessment material states that a lawful visitor under the 1957 Act can become a trespasser when they go beyond their permission.
This makes the scope of permission very important.
For example:
A hotel guest is lawfully on the hotel premises but deliberately enters an area marked as outside the scope of the guest's permitted use.
The legal question becomes whether the person remains a lawful visitor in that particular place and for that particular purpose.
If they become a trespasser, the relevant law changes to the 1984 Act.
You will study this fully in liability towards trespassers [Lesson 123. Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984].
The visitor must stay within the purpose of the visit
The 1957 Act does not simply ask whether C was originally allowed through the front door.
The purpose for which the visitor is on the premises matters.
This becomes particularly important under s2(2), which defines the scope of the common duty by reference to the purpose for which C has been invited or permitted to be there.
Therefore ask:
Why was C allowed onto the premises?
Where was C allowed to go?
Was C still acting within that permission when the danger arose?
The common duty of care
Once:
D is an occupier
the location is premises
C is a lawful visitor
the next question is the duty owed.
Section 2(1)
Section 2(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 establishes the common duty of care owed by an occupier to lawful visitors.
OCR describes this as the basic duty owed to lawful visitors.
This was an important feature of the Act because lawful visitors are brought within a common statutory duty rather than the starting point being different duties for different categories of lawful entrant.
For application purposes:
Lawful visitor → common duty of care under s2(1)
Section 2(2): what does the duty require?
Section 2(2) explains the standard of the common duty.
The occupier must take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted to be there.
There are four important ideas here:
reasonable care
all the circumstances
reasonably safe
the purpose of the visit.
These words are crucial when deciding whether the duty has been breached.
The duty is to keep the visitor reasonably safe
The Act does not require the occupier to guarantee that no visitor can ever be injured.
The statutory standard is one of reasonableness.
The occupier must take reasonable care so that the visitor is reasonably safe.
This is an objective standard consistent with the wider approach of tort law.
A good examination answer should therefore avoid saying:
“An occupier must make the premises completely safe.”
That sets the standard too high.
Instead:
The occupier must take reasonable care in the circumstances to see that the visitor is reasonably safe for the permitted purpose.
Safe visitor rather than perfect premises
Notice the wording of s2(2).
The focus is on seeing that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises.
This does not necessarily require every physical danger to be eliminated.
The question is whether the occupier has taken the reasonable care required by the circumstances.
This distinction becomes particularly useful when considering:
obvious dangers
warnings
skilled visitors
work carried out by contractors.
Those limitations and defences are developed in defences for lawful visitors [Lesson 122. Defences under the 1957 Act].
When is the duty breached?
An occupier breaches the duty where they fail to take the level of reasonable care required under s2(2) to see that C is reasonably safe for the permitted purpose.
A breach analysis should therefore ask:
What danger existed?
What was the purpose of C's lawful visit?
What would reasonable care require in the circumstances?
What did D actually do?
Was C reasonably safe?
Did D's conduct fall below the statutory standard?
This requires application, not merely stating that an accident happened.
An injury does not automatically prove breach
Suppose a lawful visitor slips and is injured.
That does not automatically mean:
“The occupier breached s2(2).”
You must identify why the premises presented a danger and why reasonable care required the occupier to do something different.
The statutory standard is reasonable safety, not absolute protection against every accident.
The danger must be relevant to occupiers’ liability
OCR's 2024 mark scheme refers to dangers connected with the state of the premises under s1(1).
OCR's 2022 assessment is also useful because a specialist cleaner suffered burns from the chemicals she herself used during her work. The mark scheme noted that the injury was not due to the state of the premises, which was relevant to why the occupier was not liable under the 1957 Act.
This gives you an important application question:
Is this genuinely an occupiers’ liability danger, or is the injury arising from something outside the relevant condition or use of the premises?
Do not assume every accident happening inside a building automatically creates liability under the Act.
The standard for adult lawful visitors
For an ordinary adult visitor, the starting point is the common duty under:
s2(1)
s2(2).
D must take reasonable care in all the circumstances to see that C is reasonably safe for the permitted purpose.
OCR's 2025 assessment materials emphasise the objective nature of this standard, noting that occupiers are required to do what is reasonable to keep visitors reasonably safe.
Therefore, the central comparison is:
What would reasonable care require from the occupier in these circumstances?
against
What did the occupier actually do?
Worked adult visitor example
A café customer, Nadia, enters the customer seating area during opening hours. The café manager knows that a floorboard has collapsed, leaving a deep hole directly beside the tables, but takes no action. Nadia steps into the hole and is injured.
Occupier
The café operator controls the premises and is likely to be an occupier.
Premises
The café is clearly premises.
Lawful visitor
Nadia is a customer using the café during opening hours and has permission to be there.
Duty
The café owes Nadia the common duty of care under s2(1).
Under s2(2), it must take reasonable care to see that she is reasonably safe while using the café for the permitted purpose.
Breach
The occupier knows of a serious physical danger directly within the area provided for customers but does nothing.
A court could therefore conclude that the occupier failed to take reasonable care and breached the duty.
The crucial reasoning is not simply that Nadia was injured. It is the occupier's failure to respond reasonably to the danger.
Child visitors
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 specifically recognises that children may require different consideration.
Section 2(3)(a)
Under s2(3)(a), an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.
OCR mark schemes describe this as imposing a higher standard of care towards children.
This means reasonable care may require an occupier to anticipate behaviour from a child which would not normally be expected from an adult visitor.
Why children are treated differently
Children may:
fail to recognise dangers
underestimate risks
act impulsively
be attracted towards something dangerous.
The standard under the 1957 Act therefore responds to the age and likely behaviour of the child.
Do not simply write:
“Children get extra protection.”
Explain why:
Because s2(3)(a) requires the occupier to be prepared for children to be less careful than adults, reasonable care may require additional precautions where a child is exposed to danger.
Relevant authorities for child visitors
OCR's 2024 mark scheme identifies:
Perry v Butlins Holiday World
Moloney v Lambeth LBC
as authorities concerning the higher standard owed to child visitors.
For this lesson, the important principle is more useful than lengthy case histories:
The age and vulnerability of a child can alter what reasonable care requires from an occupier.
Allurements
A particularly important issue with child visitors is an allurement.
An allurement is something dangerous which may attract or tempt a child.
OCR identifies:
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council
as important authorities.
An occupier may need to take account of the fact that children could be attracted towards an object, area or activity which creates a risk.
An allurement does not automatically prove liability
Be careful.
The mere existence of something attractive to a child does not automatically prove breach.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme identifies Liddle v Yorkshire (North Riding) CC for the point that the existence of an allurement is not by itself definite proof of liability.
You still need to ask:
Was the child's behaviour reasonably foreseeable?
What risk did the allurement create?
What reasonable precautions could the occupier have taken?
Did the occupier fail to take reasonable care?
Foreseeability and child behaviour
OCR's 2024 assessment gives a particularly useful illustration.
A 12-year-old visitor encountered a barn containing broken farm machinery and rubbish and used old rope to create a zip line.
The mark scheme recognised that the barn and its contents could amount to an allurement and that the child's actions could be considered reasonably foreseeable. It also accepted that alternative reasoning could be credited depending on how foreseeability was interpreted.
This shows how OCR expects AO2 to work.
You can argue either way where the facts support it, but your conclusion must be reasoned.
Exact harm does not always need to be predicted
OCR's 2024 mark scheme also states that where the broad type of damage is foreseeable, liability may still arise even where the precise injury or exact way in which it occurs was not foreseeable, citing Jolley v Sutton.
For example, the occupier need not necessarily predict:
“The child will use this exact piece of rope in this exact way and break this particular bone.”
The stronger question is whether injury to a child interacting with the dangerous attraction was reasonably foreseeable.
Parental responsibility
The rule protecting children does not mean that occupiers must personally protect every young child from every ordinary or obvious danger.
OCR recognises the relevance of parental responsibility, particularly for very young children.
Authorities identified include:
Phipps v Rochester
Bourne Leisure v Marsden.
The law may expect parents or those supervising a very young child to guard the child against obvious risks.
The younger the child, the role of supervision may become important
This creates an interesting balance.
On one hand:
Children may require greater care because they are less able to appreciate danger.
On the other:
Very young children will normally be expected to be under appropriate adult supervision.
OCR's 2024 question tested exactly this distinction.
A three-year-old child wandered away while his parents were occupied and slipped in mud on a farm. The mark scheme recognised:
the child's young age
that he was unlikely to appreciate many dangers
but also that his parents should reasonably have supervised him and protected him against obvious farm risks.
The conclusion was that the occupier was unlikely to be liable on those facts.
Child visitor does not automatically mean occupier liable
This is a crucial exam point.
Do not reason:
“C is a child, therefore D breached the duty.”
Instead:
identify s2(3)(a)
consider C's age
identify the particular danger
consider whether it may attract a child
determine what behaviour is reasonably foreseeable
consider reasonable parental supervision where relevant
reach a supported conclusion.
Applying the Act systematically
A strong Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 problem answer can follow this structure.
Step 1: Identify the occupier
Who has sufficient control or possession?
Use Wheat v Lacon where appropriate.
Step 2: Identify the premises
Apply the broad definition in s1(3)(a).
Use Wheeler v Copas where useful.
Step 3: Identify the visitor's status
Why is C lawfully there?
Consider:
express permission
implied permission
contract
legal right of entry.
Step 4: Check the scope of permission
Is C still in the area and acting for the purpose for which entry was permitted?
If C has exceeded permission, their status may change.
Step 5: State the duty
Use:
s2(1), common duty of care
s2(2), reasonable care to see that C is reasonably safe for the permitted purpose.
Step 6: Identify any special child issue
If C is a child, consider:
s2(3)(a)
age and vulnerability
any allurement
foreseeable child behaviour
parental responsibility where appropriate.
Step 7: Apply breach
Explain what reasonable care required and compare it with what D actually did.
Step 8: Conclude
State whether D is likely to have breached the common duty of care.
Worked example: adult visitor
Hartley Farm runs a farm shop open to the public. Leila enters during normal opening hours to buy food. A section of the customer walkway has collapsed and the farm manager has known about it since the previous day. Leila falls into the damaged area and is injured.
Occupier
Hartley Farm controls the site and is likely to be the occupier under the principle associated with Wheat v Lacon.
Premises
The farm shop and walkway fall within the broad concept of premises.
Lawful visitor
Leila is a customer entering an area open to customers, so she is lawfully present.
Duty
Under s2(1), Hartley Farm owes her the common duty of care.
Under s2(2), it must take reasonable care to see that she is reasonably safe while using the premises for the permitted purpose of visiting the shop.
Breach
The manager knows of the collapsed customer walkway but takes no action. A visitor using the designated walkway is directly exposed to the danger.
This strongly supports a conclusion that reasonable care has not been taken.
Conclusion
Hartley Farm is likely to have breached its duty under the 1957 Act.
Worked example: child visitor and allurement
Oakridge Holidays invites families to stay at its holiday park. Twelve-year-old Maisie finds a disused area containing broken machinery and old climbing ropes. The area is freely accessible from the accommodation. She begins playing with the ropes and is injured when one breaks.
Status
Maisie is part of a family lawfully staying at the holiday park.
Duty
The occupier owes her the common duty under s2(1) and s2(2).
Because she is a child, s2(3)(a) also requires the occupier to be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.
Allurement
Broken machinery and ropes may be capable of attracting a child.
The issue is whether it was reasonably foreseeable that a child might interact with them and suffer injury.
Breach
If reasonable care required the occupier to prevent children from being exposed to the dangerous attraction, but no precautions were taken, breach becomes more likely.
Conclusion
A supported argument can be made that the occupier breached the higher standard required towards a child.
This mirrors the type of reasoning OCR rewarded in the 2024 paper.
Worked example: very young child
A family stays at Greenfield Farm. Their three-year-old child, Noah, wanders away from his parents and slips in ordinary mud while exploring an outdoor farm area.
Child standard
Noah's age means the occupier must be prepared for him to be less careful than an adult.
Parental supervision
However, because Noah is extremely young, reasonable parental supervision is also relevant.
His parents could reasonably be expected to prevent him wandering unsupervised and to protect him against ordinary and obvious farm risks.
Conclusion
The fact that Noah is a child does not automatically make the occupier liable. The expectation of parental responsibility may support the conclusion that the common duty was not breached.
Lawful visitor versus trespasser
Being able to distinguish the two categories is essential.
Lawful visitor | Trespasser |
Has permission or another lawful right to enter | Does not have the relevant permission |
Covered by Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 | Covered by Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 |
Owed the common duty of care under s2 | Different statutory requirements apply |
Must remain within the scope of permission | May include a former lawful visitor who exceeds permission |
You will examine the second column in trespassers and the 1984 Act [Lesson 123. Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984].
What belongs in the next lesson?
The 1957 Act contains additional rules concerning:
visitors exercising a calling or trade
warnings
work carried out by independent contractors
consent
contributory negligence
possible restrictions on liability.
OCR assesses these as important ways in which an occupier may limit or avoid liability.
They are covered systematically in defences under the 1957 Act [Lesson 122. Defences under the 1957 Act].
For this lesson, keep your main focus on:
Who is protected? What duty is owed? Has the reasonable-safety standard been breached?
The 1957 Act compared with ordinary negligence
Occupiers’ liability is a distinct statutory area of tort.
Do not automatically treat an Occupiers’ Liability Act problem as an ordinary negligence problem using:
Donoghue v Stevenson
Caparo
Robinson
the general breach risk factors.
Where the facts concern a lawful visitor and a danger on premises, start with the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
OCR's 2024 examiner report warns against moving material from one area of the specification into another where it is not required.
This is a major exam technique point.
A strong application paragraph
Weak:
“C is a visitor and D has breached the duty because C was injured.”
Stronger:
“C is a lawful visitor because she entered the premises as a customer with permission. D therefore owes her the common duty of care under s2(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Under s2(2), D must take reasonable care to see that C is reasonably safe for the permitted purpose of using the customer area. D knew that the floor in that area had collapsed but took no steps to address the danger. D is therefore likely to have failed to take reasonable care and breached the common duty.”
Notice the sequence:
status → statutory duty → factual danger → reasonable standard → conclusion
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Occupier | A person with sufficient control or possession of premises. | Used to identify the potential defendant under the Act. |
Premises | A broadly interpreted location or structure, including fixed or movable structures under s1(3)(a). | Used to establish that the Act applies to the place concerned. |
Lawful visitor | A person who has permission, a contractual basis or another legal right to be on the premises. | Used to determine whether the 1957 Act applies. |
Common duty of care | The duty owed under s2(1) to lawful visitors. | Used as the statutory basis for the occupier's responsibility. |
Reasonably safe | The standard in s2(2), requiring reasonable care for the visitor's safety for the permitted purpose. | Used to determine whether the duty has been breached. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Start with the statutory prerequisites. OCR's 2025 report found that stronger responses understood the definitions, the nature of the duty and the limits on liability under the 1957 Act.
A reliable opening is:
occupier → premises → lawful visitor → duty → breach
Examiner hint: Use the facts the question actually gives you. In the 2024 child-visitor problem, successful candidates recognised the children's status, then focused on the specific allurement and parental-supervision issues raised by the scenario.
Examiner hint: Do not discuss every rule in the Act. OCR's 2024 report criticised candidates who included irrelevant material on skilled visitors and independent contractors or invented warning signs which were not in the scenario.
Selectivity matters.
Examiner hint: Do not give unsupported common-sense advice. OCR noted that weaker answers sometimes told the occupier what they “should have done” without connecting that advice to the relevant law.
Use:
legal rule → factual application → conclusion
Examiner hint: Do not assume that the 1957 Act legally requires an occupier to put up a warning sign whenever danger exists. OCR's 2025 report specifically identifies this as a misconception. The law concerning warnings is more precise and is covered in Lesson 122.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Assuming the property owner is automatically the occupier
Why this is incorrect: The important question is control or possession.
How to improve: Use Wheat v Lacon and identify who has sufficient control over the premises.
Mistake: Forgetting to establish premises
Why this is incorrect: Occupiers’ liability concerns an occupier of premises.
How to improve: Briefly identify the s1(3)(a) requirement and apply the wide approach recognised by OCR.
Mistake: Saying only “C was allowed in”
Why this is incomplete: You should explain the lawful basis for C's presence.
How to improve: Identify whether the permission is express, implied, contractual or based on a legal right of entry.
Mistake: Assuming lawful status can never change
Why this is incorrect: A lawful visitor can go beyond the limits of their permission and become a trespasser.
How to improve: Check the place and purpose for which C was invited or permitted to be there.
Mistake: Saying the occupier must keep the premises completely safe
Why this is incorrect: Section 2(2) requires reasonable care to see that the visitor is reasonably safe.
How to improve: Use the statutory language accurately.
Mistake: Assuming every accident on premises is a breach
Why this is incorrect: The occurrence of an injury does not prove that the occupier failed to take reasonable care.
How to improve: Identify the danger, the reasonable precautions and D's actual conduct.
Mistake: Treating an occupiers’ liability question as ordinary negligence
Why this is incorrect: The 1957 Act provides the relevant statutory framework for lawful visitors.
How to improve: Begin with OLA 1957 rather than automatically applying Donoghue, Caparo or Robinson.
Mistake: Forgetting the special position of children
Why this is incorrect: Section 2(3)(a) requires occupiers to be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.
How to improve: Where C is a child, consider age, vulnerability and what child behaviour was reasonably foreseeable.
Mistake: Assuming every child accident makes the occupier liable
Why this is incorrect: The higher standard does not create automatic liability.
How to improve: Consider the nature of the danger, any allurement, foreseeability and the reasonable expectation of parental supervision.
Mistake: Assuming an allurement automatically establishes breach
Why this is incorrect: OCR expressly recognises that an allurement alone is not definite proof of liability.
How to improve: Explain why the attraction made the child's conduct and resulting type of harm reasonably foreseeable.
Mistake: Inventing warnings or defences
Why this is incorrect: Problem questions reward application of law to the facts provided.
How to improve: Do not add hypothetical signs, contractors or defences simply because you remember those areas of the Act.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Identify the Act governing an occupier's liability towards lawful visitors. (1 mark)
Question 2
Define a lawful visitor for the purposes of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. (3 marks)
Question 3
Explain what is meant by an occupier and identify the relevant authority. (4 marks)
Question 4
Explain the common duty of care owed to a lawful visitor under ss2(1) and 2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. (5 marks)
Question 5
Meadow Café is open to customers. Aisha enters during opening hours to buy lunch. The café manager controls the premises. A broken floorboard in the customer area creates a deep hole, which the manager has known about for several days. Aisha falls into it and is injured.
Apply the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 to determine whether the café is likely to have breached its duty to Aisha. Do not discuss any defences. (8 marks)
Question 6
Oak Farm Holidays welcomes families as paying guests. Twelve-year-old Noah explores an unlocked barn containing old machinery, ropes and broken equipment. He decides to climb on the equipment, falls and breaks his arm.
Explain how Noah's age and the possible allurement are relevant to breach under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. (6 marks)
Question 7
Three-year-old Eliza is staying with her parents at a holiday park. While her parents are unpacking, Eliza wanders away and slips on ordinary wet grass in an outdoor area.
Explain how the rules concerning child visitors and parental responsibility may affect the occupier's liability. (6 marks)
Question 8
Riverdale Activity Centre controls a large holiday site. The Khan family are paying guests and are permitted to use the accommodation, gardens and recreation areas. Fourteen-year-old Sami enters an open storage shed beside the recreation area. The shed contains abandoned ropes, broken climbing equipment and other rubbish. Sami uses one of the old ropes to swing from a beam. The rope snaps and he suffers serious injuries.
Advise Riverdale Activity Centre whether it is likely to be liable to Sami under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Do not discuss defences or remedies. (20 marks)
Answers and mark scheme
Question 1
1 mark
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. (1)
Question 2
3 marks
Award credit for explaining that a lawful visitor is a person who has a lawful basis for entering the premises, including:
someone with express or implied permission (1)
someone with a contractual right to be there (1)
someone with a legal right of entry (1)
Credit an equivalent accurate definition supported by examples.
Question 3
4 marks
Award credit for:
an occupier is determined by control or possession rather than ownership alone (1)
D must have a sufficient degree of control over the premises (1)
more than one occupier may potentially exist (1)
Wheat v Lacon is the relevant authority (1)
Question 4
5 marks
Award credit for:
s2(1) establishes the common duty of care towards lawful visitors (1)
the duty is owed by the occupier (1)
under s2(2), D must take reasonable care in all the circumstances (1)
the aim is to see that C is reasonably safe (1)
the safety obligation relates to the purposes for which C was invited or permitted to be on the premises (1)
Question 5
8 marks
A strong response should explain:
the manager or café operator has control of the premises and is therefore likely to be an occupier (1)
the café is premises for the purposes of the Act (1)
Aisha is a lawful visitor because she is a customer entering an area open for customer use (1)
the café therefore owes her the common duty under s2(1) (1)
under s2(2), it must take reasonable care to see that she is reasonably safe while using the customer area (1)
the broken floorboard is a danger in the area she is permitted to use (1)
the manager has known about the serious danger for several days but has taken no action (1)
this is likely to amount to a failure to take reasonable care and therefore a breach (1)
Question 6
6 marks
Award credit for:
Noah is a child lawful visitor (1)
s2(3)(a) requires the occupier to be prepared for children to be less careful than adults (1)
this may require a higher level of care towards him (1)
old machinery, ropes and broken equipment may amount to an allurement to a child (1)
the court should consider whether it was reasonably foreseeable that a child might interact with the items and suffer injury (1)
if reasonable precautions were required but were not taken, breach becomes more likely, although the presence of an allurement does not automatically establish liability (1)
Question 7
6 marks
A strong response should explain:
Eliza is a child and s2(3)(a) applies (1)
an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults (1)
her very young age means she may be unable to recognise ordinary dangers (1)
however, authorities such as Phipps v Rochester recognise a reasonable expectation of parental supervision for very young children (1)
her parents could reasonably be expected to prevent a three-year-old from wandering unsupervised and to guard against an obvious outdoor risk (1)
the occupier may therefore be found not to have breached its common duty on these facts (1)
Credit a sensible alternative conclusion where properly supported.
Question 8
20 marks
A strong answer should construct the claim systematically.
Occupier
Riverdale Activity Centre controls the holiday site.
It is therefore likely to be an occupier using the control principle associated with Wheat v Lacon.
Premises
The holiday site and storage shed fall within the broad definition of premises under s1(3)(a).
Wheeler v Copas may support the broad interpretation.
Lawful visitor
Sami is part of a family of paying guests.
The family therefore has permission to be on the holiday site.
Sami begins as a lawful visitor protected by the 1957 Act.
A strong answer may also consider whether entering the storage shed remains within the scope of the permission, depending on how the factual circumstances are interpreted.
Duty
Under s2(1), Riverdale owes lawful visitors the common duty of care.
Under s2(2), it must take reasonable care in all the circumstances to see that Sami is reasonably safe while using the premises for the purposes for which he is permitted to be there.
Child visitor
Sami is 14 and therefore a child.
Under s2(3)(a), the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.
The standard may therefore require greater precautions than for an adult.
Allurement
The abandoned ropes and broken climbing equipment may be attractive to a child.
Authorities including Glasgow Corporation v Taylor and Jolley v Sutton support considering whether the dangerous items could act as an allurement.
The existence of an allurement does not automatically establish liability.
The question is whether it was reasonably foreseeable that a child might interact with the equipment and suffer injury.
Application to breach
The storage shed is beside an area used by holidaying families.
It is open and contains equipment capable of attracting children.
Sami's decision to use an old rope may therefore be argued to be foreseeable child behaviour.
The occupier may have failed to take reasonable care if reasonable precautions were required to protect child visitors from the danger but were not taken.
It is not necessary that Riverdale foresee the precise way in which Sami would use the rope if the broad type of injury was reasonably foreseeable.
Conclusion
Riverdale is likely to be liable if Sami remained within the scope of his lawful visit and the court concludes that the open shed and abandoned equipment created a foreseeable danger to child visitors which reasonable care required Riverdale to address.
However, a reasoned alternative conclusion may be reached if the facts support the view that Sami went beyond the scope of his permission or that his particular conduct was not reasonably foreseeable.
A high-level response should use the statutory provisions and relevant authorities accurately, link them directly to the facts and reach a supported conclusion rather than simply stating that an occupier is responsible whenever a child is injured.
You will next develop the ways an occupier may limit or avoid liability in warnings, skilled visitors, contractors and defences [Lesson 122. Defences under the 1957 Act], before comparing the different statutory position for trespassers [Lesson 123. Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984] and later evaluating occupiers’ liability [Lesson 125. Evaluating occupiers’ liability].
Comments