Learning Outcomes
This article outlines the specific standards of care owed by occupiers to particular categories of lawful visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. It focuses on the modified duties applicable to children and skilled visitors (specialists). Understanding these variations is essential for correctly applying occupiers' liability principles in SQE1 assessments. This will enable you to identify how an occupier's duty adapts based on the visitor's characteristics and the nature of the risks involved.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, you need to understand how the common duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 is modified for specific types of visitors. Revision should focus on:
- The statutory duty owed to lawful visitors under s 2(2) OLA 1957.
- The higher standard of care expected for child visitors under s 2(3)(a) OLA 1957, including the concept of allurements and parental responsibility.
- The lower standard of care applicable to skilled visitors regarding risks incidental to their calling under s 2(3)(b) OLA 1957.
- Applying these principles to determine liability in factual scenarios presented in multiple-choice questions.
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.
- Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, must an occupier guard children against dangers that would be obvious to an adult?
- What legal concept describes something on premises that might attract a child into danger?
- True or False: An occupier owes the same standard of care to an experienced electrician regarding electrical hazards as they do to an ordinary visitor regarding the same hazard.
- In which case did the House of Lords consider the liability of an occupier regarding poisonous berries accessible to children in a public park?
Introduction
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) imposes a 'common duty of care' on occupiers towards their lawful visitors. This duty, outlined in s 2(2), requires occupiers to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure the visitor is reasonably safe for the purpose of their visit. However, the Act recognises that what is 'reasonable care' can vary depending on the visitor. Sections 2(3)(a) and 2(3)(b) specifically modify the standard of care for children and skilled visitors (specialists), respectively. Understanding these modifications is essential for advising on occupiers' liability scenarios.
The Standard of Care for Children (OLA 1957, s 2(3)(a))
Section 2(3)(a) OLA 1957 explicitly states that 'an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults'. This imposes a higher standard of care on occupiers where children are foreseeable visitors. Occupiers must consider that children may not appreciate risks obvious to adults and may be attracted to potentially dangerous objects or areas.
Allurements
An important aspect of the duty towards children is the concept of 'allurement'. This refers to something on the premises that might attract a child to investigate or play, thereby exposing them to danger they do not fully appreciate.
Key Term: Allurement An object or feature on the premises that might attract a child and lead them into danger due to their natural curiosity or lack of appreciation of risk.
Occupiers must take greater precautions where such allurements exist.
Worked Example 1.1
A local council maintains a public park containing various botanical plants. One shrub bears bright red berries which look appealing but are highly poisonous. A seven-year-old child visiting the park eats some berries and becomes seriously ill. The shrub area was not fenced off, nor were there warning signs about the berries. Is the council likely to be liable?
Answer: Yes, the council is likely liable. The poisonous berries constitute an allurement to a child. The council, as occupier, should have foreseen that children might be tempted by the berries and failed to take reasonable steps (like fencing or clear warnings) to protect them from this danger, breaching the higher standard of care owed under s 2(3)(a) OLA 1957. This reflects the principles established in Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] AC 44.
Parental Responsibility
While occupiers owe a higher duty to children, the law also expects parents or guardians to exercise reasonable supervision over their children. An occupier may sometimes be entitled to assume that very young children will be accompanied by a responsible adult who will protect them from obvious dangers.
Worked Example 1.2
A five-year-old boy wanders onto a construction site owned by BuildCo Ltd while his parents are distracted. He falls into an unsecured trench and is injured. BuildCo Ltd argues that the parents should have supervised the child. Is this a valid argument?
Answer: Yes, this argument has merit. While BuildCo Ltd owes a duty to child visitors (even trespassers, potentially under OLA 1984, though the primary issue here is visitor status under OLA 1957 if entry was permitted), the courts recognise parental responsibility. As established in Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450, occupiers might reasonably expect very young children to be supervised, especially near obvious dangers like a construction trench. The lack of parental supervision could negate or reduce BuildCo Ltd's liability.
The Standard of Care for Specialists (OLA 1957, s 2(3)(b))
Section 2(3)(b) OLA 1957 provides that 'an occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so'. This means that for visitors entering premises to perform a specialist task (e.g., electricians, plumbers, window cleaners), the occupier generally owes a lower standard of care concerning risks characteristic of that calling.
Key Term: Specialist Visitor A lawful visitor entering premises to exercise a particular trade, craft, or profession, who is expected under OLA 1957 s 2(3)(b) to guard against any risks characteristic of that calling.
The occupier can assume the specialist has the necessary proficiency to identify and manage risks associated with their work.
Risks Incidental to the Calling
The key aspect of s 2(3)(b) is that the risk must be 'ordinarily incident' to the visitor's calling. The occupier's reduced duty applies only to dangers that the specialist should reasonably anticipate and handle as part of their job. It does not extend to unrelated dangers on the premises.
Worked Example 1.3
An experienced electrician is hired by an occupier to rewire a faulty circuit in an old house. While working on the wiring (with the power supposedly off), the electrician receives an electric shock due to an unusual and undocumented connection in the system that the occupier knew about but failed to mention. Is the occupier liable?
Answer: Yes, the occupier is likely liable. While electrical work inherently involves risks (which the electrician is expected to guard against under s 2(3)(b)), the shock here arose from an unusual danger specific to the premises, which the occupier knew about. The occupier had a duty to warn the specialist of this hidden, non-incidental risk. The principle in Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117 applies to risks ordinarily incident to the trade, not unusual or hidden dangers known to the occupier.
Exam Warning
Do not assume an occupier owes no duty to a specialist. The occupier's duty is reduced only concerning risks characteristic of the specialist's job. For unrelated dangers (e.g., a defective staircase), the specialist is owed the standard common duty of care like any other visitor.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- The common duty of care under OLA 1957 is modified for certain visitors.
- Occupiers owe a higher standard of care to children (s 2(3)(a)), needing to guard against dangers obvious to adults and potential allurements.
- Parental responsibility is a factor; occupiers may expect young children to be supervised.
- Occupiers owe a lower standard of care to specialists concerning risks ordinarily incident to their calling (s 2(3)(b)).
- The specialist is expected to appreciate and guard against risks associated with their profession.
- The occupier's reduced duty to specialists does not cover unrelated or hidden dangers on the premises known to the occupier.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Allurement
- Specialist Visitor
