Occupiers' liability - Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (visito...

Learning Outcomes

This article outlines the scope and application of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 in relation to visitors, including:

• who qualifies as an occupier, what counts as premises, and how control is assessed in exam-style scenarios
• the definition, content, and limits of the common duty of care owed to lawful visitors
• how the standard of care is adapted for different categories of visitors, particularly children and skilled visitors
• the role of warnings, notices, and physical precautions in discharging the duty and managing obvious or hidden risks
• liability for work carried out by independent contractors and how Section 2(4)(b) reallocates responsibility
• available defences, including consent and contributory negligence, and how they affect the assessment of damages
• when and to what extent liability can be excluded or restricted, with reference to UCTA 1977 and CRA 2015
• the distinction between occupancy liability for the state of premises and ordinary negligence for activities on land
• the types of harm recoverable under the 1957 Act, including personal injury and property damage
• how to apply these principles methodically to SQE1-style multiple-choice and problem questions

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand occupiers’ liability as it applies to visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• the statutory definition and scope of the duty owed by occupiers to visitors
• the meaning of "occupier" and "premises" under the Act
• the standard of care required and how it varies for children and skilled visitors
• the effect of warnings, consent, and contributory negligence as defences
• the practical implications for advising clients on occupiers’ liability
• the distinction between occupancy liability (state of premises) and activities carried out on premises
• how Section 2(4)(b) allocates responsibility for work done by independent contractors
• how exclusion of liability is controlled by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and Consumer Rights Act 2015
• that property damage claims may be brought under the 1957 Act (unlike the 1984 Act)

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. What is the statutory test for the duty of care owed by an occupier to a visitor under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?
2. Who can be considered an "occupier" for the purposes of the Act?
3. How does the standard of care differ for children compared to adults under the Act?
4. What is the effect of a warning sign on an occupier’s liability?
5. Can an occupier exclude liability for personal injury to visitors? If so, in what circumstances?

Introduction

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 sets out the legal responsibilities of those in control of premises towards visitors. The Act imposes a statutory duty of care, requiring occupiers to take reasonable steps to ensure that visitors are reasonably safe while on the premises for the purposes permitted. Understanding the scope of this duty, who it applies to, and the available defences is essential for SQE1.

The 1957 Act is concerned with dangers due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them. It regulates an “occupancy” duty, rather than liability for activities carried out on the premises, which remains governed by ordinary negligence principles. Under the 1957 Act, the duty extends to personal injury and damage to property suffered by lawful visitors. In contrast, the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 governs duties owed to non-visitors (typically trespassers) and is limited to personal injury.

Who is an Occupier?

The Act does not define "occupier," but case law establishes that an occupier is anyone with sufficient control over premises to ensure the safety of those who enter. Control may be physical (possession or day-to-day management) or legal (the right to control access or maintenance), and more than one occupier may exist at the same time.

Key Term: occupier
A person who has a sufficient degree of control over premises to put them under a duty of care to visitors.

Multiple parties may be occupiers at the same time if they share control (e.g., landlord and tenant, owner and contractor). A landlord is normally not the occupier of demised premises, but may be the occupier of common parts retained under their control (e.g., a common staircase). Legal control alone can suffice; a local authority that has taken control of a property but not yet secured it may be treated as occupier. Similarly, a contractor in control of a construction zone may be an occupier alongside the landowner.

Worked Example 1.1

Scenario: A landlord lets a flat to a tenant but retains control over the building’s common staircase. A visitor is injured on the staircase due to a loose handrail. Who is the occupier?

Answer:
The landlord is the occupier of the staircase because they retain control over it, even though the tenant controls the flat itself.

What are Premises?

The Act gives "premises" a broad meaning, covering land, buildings, and also fixed or moveable structures such as scaffolding, ladders, vehicles, or vessels. Courts have treated a wide range of items as “premises,” including a ship in dry dock, aircraft, temporary scaffolding, ladders, and even large moveable installations (e.g., an inflatable structure).

Key Term: premises
Land, buildings, and any fixed or moveable structure, including vehicles, vessels, and aircraft, to which the duty of care may apply.

This breadth ensures occupiers’ duties apply across typical commercial, public, and domestic settings. The focus remains on dangers arising from the state of those premises.

Who is a Visitor?

A visitor is anyone who has express or implied permission to be on the premises. This includes:

• those invited for a specific purpose (e.g., customers, guests)
• those with implied permission (e.g., postal workers, persons using entries reasonably open to the public)
• those entering under a legal right (e.g., police with a warrant)
• those present under a contract (e.g., ticket holders or persons supplied services on site)

Implied permission can arise from the occupier’s conduct or acquiescence (for example, longstanding tolerated usage), but occupiers may limit the area or purpose for which permission is given. A person who exceeds the scope of their permission (e.g., entering a "Staff Only" area) becomes a trespasser and is not protected by the 1957 Act. Likewise, users of a public right of way are not visitors for the purposes of the Act and are outside this statutory scheme.

A hospital patient or employee on site is generally a visitor while acting within the ordinary scope of their presence and permissions; if they go into restricted areas or act outside the permitted purpose, they may move into the 1984 Act territory.

Key Term: visitor
A person who is lawfully on premises by express or implied permission, or by legal right.

The Common Duty of Care

Section 2(2) of the Act requires occupiers to 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.

Key Term: common duty of care
The statutory duty requiring occupiers to take reasonable care to ensure visitors are reasonably safe for the permitted purpose.

The duty is not to guarantee absolute safety, but to act as a reasonable occupier would in the circumstances. It applies to personal injury and property damage suffered by visitors. In assessing reasonableness, courts consider factors analogous to breach analysis in negligence, such as:

• the likelihood and severity of harm
• the nature of the danger (obvious or hidden)
• the type of visitor and their purpose
• the practicality and cost of precautions
• whether warnings or barriers were feasible and adequate
• the social utility of the activity and impact of precautions on desirable activities (courts may have regard to the Compensation Act 2006 when assessing standards of care)

The duty is an “occupancy” duty; if the claimant’s harm is caused by activities carried out on the land (rather than its state), the claim should be analysed under ordinary negligence.

Worked Example 1.2

Scenario: A supermarket mops up a spill and places a clear "Wet Floor" sign. A customer ignores the sign, slips, and is injured. Has the occupier breached the common duty of care?

Answer:
No. The occupier took reasonable steps to warn of the danger. The customer’s injury was not due to a lack of reasonable care by the occupier.

Special Categories of Visitors

Children

Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. The standard of care is higher where children are likely to be present, especially if there are hidden dangers or attractive nuisances (allurements). Attractive or concealed dangers known to the occupier demand additional precautions, such as fencing and warning notices appropriate to the age and ability of the likely child visitors.

Key Term: allurement
Something on premises that is especially attractive and potentially dangerous to children, requiring extra precautions by the occupier.

Case law illustrates the approach:

• where a danger is obvious, and guardians are expected to supervise very young children, the occupier may not be liable for an incident that would have been avoided with reasonable parental supervision
• if an allurement or concealed danger is present (e.g., attractive but poisonous plants), the occupier should guard against foreseeable harm by appropriate warnings or barriers
• older children (e.g., teenagers) may be expected to appreciate obvious risks in some settings (e.g., railways), reducing the need for extensive precautions

However, the law does not place an absolute duty to childproof premises; it expects reasonable measures bearing in mind the age range of likely visitors and parental supervision of very young children.

Skilled Visitors

Where a visitor is exercising a skill or trade (e.g., electrician, plumber), the occupier may expect them to guard against risks ordinarily incidental to their work. Section 2(3)(b) recognises that a person exercising a calling will appreciate and guard against special risks associated with it. That principle does not absolve occupiers of responsibility for dangers outside the worker’s skill or knowledge, or for hazards unrelated to the calling.

Worked Example 1.3

Scenario: Two chimney sweeps are warned about dangerous fumes in a boiler room but proceed anyway and are injured. Is the occupier liable?

Answer:
No. The occupier can expect skilled visitors to appreciate and guard against risks incidental to their calling.

Worked Example 1.4

Scenario: An electrician attends a café to fix a faulty wall socket. The floorboard immediately in front of the socket has rotted through and collapses when stepped on, injuring the electrician. The café had no warning or barrier around the weak floorboard. Does Section 2(3)(b) protect the occupier?

Answer:
No. The hazard (a weak floorboard) is not a special risk incidental to an electrician’s calling. The occupier should have addressed or warned of the defective flooring. Section 2(3)(b) reduces the duty only for risks associated with the visitor’s skill.

Warnings and Discharging the Duty

An occupier may discharge the duty of care by giving adequate warnings of danger. However, a warning is only effective if it enables the visitor to be reasonably safe. Generic warnings (“Caution”) may not suffice for specific or hidden dangers. Where feasible, occupiers should combine warnings with physical measures (e.g., barriers, cordons) in higher-risk areas or where children are present. The clearer and more specific the warning, the more likely it is to discharge the duty.

Obvious risks may not require a warning. For instance, the danger of swimming in open water is commonly understood; a failure to place “No swimming” signs may not amount to negligence where the risk is obvious. Conversely, where a hidden danger exists (e.g., an unguarded sheer drop not evident to visitors following a path), a clear and well-placed warning is generally required.

Exam Warning

A warning sign does not automatically absolve an occupier from liability. The warning must be clear, specific, and sufficient to enable the visitor to avoid the danger. If the danger is obvious, or the visitor is aware of it, a warning may not be necessary.

Worked Example 1.5

Scenario: A heritage site has a path leading close to an unfenced cliff edge which is not readily apparent from the approach. A small, general “Caution” sign is posted at the entrance. A visitor, unaware of the drop, falls. Has the occupier discharged the duty?

Answer:
No. A general “Caution” at the entrance is unlikely to enable visitors to be reasonably safe. A clear, prominent warning at the point of risk, or barriers, would be expected for a hidden sheer drop.

Liability for Independent Contractors

If a visitor is injured due to the work of an independent contractor, the occupier may avoid liability if:

• it was reasonable to entrust the work to a contractor
• reasonable steps were taken to ensure the contractor was competent
• reasonable steps were taken to check the work was properly done (unless highly technical)

Section 2(4)(b) allocates responsibility in a way that reflects practical realities. The more technically complex the work, the more reasonable it is for an occupier to rely on the skill of a reputable contractor. Conversely, where the task is straightforward (e.g., clearing ice from steps), the occupier should take reasonable steps to ensure the contractor’s work has actually made the area safe. Reasonableness may include checking qualifications, trade memberships, references, and inspecting the finished work where appropriate. There is no general duty to verify the contractor’s insurance, though ensuring competence is essential.

Worked Example 1.6

Scenario: A hotel engages a lift engineering firm for maintenance. A defect in the lift mechanism causes injury to a guest. The hotel had employed a reputable specialist and could not reasonably assess the technical work. Is the hotel liable?

Answer:
No. For complex technical work, it is reasonable to entrust to a competent specialist and rely on their skill. The occupier will usually not be liable if they chose a competent contractor and reasonably relied on them.

Defences

Consent (Volenti Non Fit Injuria)

If a visitor knowingly and willingly accepts the risk of injury, the occupier may have a complete defence. The visitor must have full knowledge of the risk and voluntarily accept it. Section 2(5) preserves the defence within the 1957 Act. It is interpreted strictly: mere awareness of risk is insufficient. Consent is rarely established for employees or rescuers, who often act under duty or compulsion rather than voluntary choice.

Contributory Negligence

If the visitor fails to take reasonable care for their own safety, any damages may be reduced proportionally under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. Typical scenarios include ignoring clear warnings, entering cordoned areas, or failing to take ordinary precautions for obvious hazards. The reduction reflects the visitor’s share of responsibility for the damage, not for the accident per se.

Exclusion of Liability

Occupiers may seek to exclude or restrict liability by notice or contract, but statutory controls apply. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) and Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), business occupiers and traders face strict limits:

• a trader or business occupier cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence to consumers under CRA 2015 and to non-consumers (business visitors) under UCTA 1977
• exclusions for other loss (e.g., property damage) may be effective only if reasonable (UCTA) or fair (CRA), assessed in all the circumstances
• an exclusion must be adequately brought to the visitor’s attention before entry or before the contract is formed (e.g., before ticket purchase), and its wording must clearly cover the loss at issue

Private occupiers (non-business) are not subject to UCTA or CRA and may in principle exclude liability, but any exclusion is still scrutinised for clarity and adequate notice, and cannot defeat claims where the occupier would otherwise be liable in negligence in a way contrary to public policy.

Contractual exclusion terms must be incorporated before the contract is made (e.g., before buying a ticket), and noncontractual notices must be reasonably brought to the visitor’s attention before the risk is encountered. A notice at one entrance may not be effective for visitors entering elsewhere.

Worked Example 1.7

Scenario: A leisure centre displays at its entrance: “We accept no responsibility for death or personal injury on our premises.” A paying consumer slips due to a negligently maintained poolside. Can the centre rely on the notice?

Answer:
No. A trader cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The notice is ineffective for such harm.

Summary

In practice:

• the occupier’s duty under the 1957 Act is to keep visitors reasonably safe for the permitted purpose, not to guarantee safety
• the duty covers personal injury and property damage due to the state of the premises
• the standard adjusts for children and for skilled visitors, and warnings can discharge the duty when adequate for the risk
• for harms arising from contractor work, Section 2(4)(b) may protect the occupier if they reasonably engaged a competent contractor and took appropriate steps
• defences of consent and contributory negligence may apply; exclusions are tightly controlled by UCTA and CRA

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 imposes a statutory duty of care on occupiers towards visitors.
• An occupier is anyone with sufficient control over premises, not just the owner, and there may be multiple occupiers of the same premises.
• Premises include land, buildings, and fixed or moveable structures; the duty is concerned with dangers due to the state of the premises.
• Visitors are those with express or implied permission, or a legal right to enter; exceeding the scope of permission converts status to trespasser.
• The standard of care is what is reasonable in all the circumstances, and the duty under the 1957 Act extends to personal injury and property damage.
• A higher standard is owed to children; occupiers should guard against concealed dangers and allurements where children are likely to be present.
• A lower standard may apply to skilled visitors for risks ordinarily incidental to their calling, but occupiers remain liable for hazards outside the visitor’s skill.
• Warnings must be adequate to discharge the duty of care; obvious risks may require no warning, but hidden dangers usually do.
• Liability for independent contractors may be avoided under Section 2(4)(b) if work was reasonably entrusted, competence checked, and the work reasonably verified (unless highly technical).
• Defences include consent and contributory negligence; exclusion of liability for death or personal injury is invalid for traders and business occupiers under CRA 2015 and UCTA 1977.
• Effective exclusion requires clear wording and adequate notice; contractual exclusions must be incorporated before the contract, and noncontractual notices must be reasonably brought to visitors’ attention.

Key Terms and Concepts

• occupier
• premises
• visitor
• common duty of care
• allurement