Occupiers' liability - Standard of care for different visito...

Learning Outcomes

This article outlines the occupiers' liability standard of care for children and specialist visitors under the OLA 1957, including:

• Application and adjustment of the common duty of care in s 2(2) OLA 1957 for children and skilled visitors under s 2(3)(a) and s 2(3)(b).
• Distinction between dangers obvious to adults and special risks to children, including when an occupier may reasonably assume parental supervision.
• The concept of an allurement and circumstances requiring fencing, guarding, or other steps (rather than or in addition to warnings) to keep child visitors reasonably safe.
• The reduced duty owed to specialists for risks ordinarily incident to their calling, and the continuing full duty for hazards outside that sphere or unusual or hidden dangers known to the occupier.
• Application of the statutory standard to realistic scenarios, including the interplay with warning signs (s 2(4)(a)) and the limits of reliance on a specialist’s skill.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the statutory duty of care in occupiers' liability under the OLA 1957, including its modification for children and specialist visitors and the operation of warnings and related provisions, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• The statutory duty owed to lawful visitors under s 2(2) OLA 1957 (reasonable care to keep visitors reasonably safe for their permitted purposes).
• The higher standard of care expected for child visitors under s 2(3)(a) OLA 1957, including allurements, obvious risks, and parental supervision.
• The lower standard of care applicable to skilled visitors regarding risks ordinarily incident to their calling under s 2(3)(b) OLA 1957, and when full duty persists.
• Warnings under s 2(4)(a): when a warning makes a visitor “reasonably safe,” and why warnings may be inadequate for young children.
• The distinct roles of s 2(3)(b) and s 2(4)(b): expectations of skilled visitors versus an occupier’s ability to rely on a competent independent contractor (contrast, do not conflate).
• Applying these principles to determine liability in MCQ-style factual scenarios.

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. Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, must an occupier guard children against dangers that would be obvious to an adult?
2. What legal concept describes something on premises that might attract a child into danger?
3. 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.
4. 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. Reasonableness is fact sensitive: the law does not demand that premises be made risk free, but that the visitor is made reasonably safe to use them for the permitted purpose. Factors include the nature of the risk, its likelihood and gravity, practicality of precautions, cost, the nature of the premises, and crucially, the type of visitor.

The Act expressly adjusts what “reasonable care” entails for two categories:

• Children (s 2(3)(a)): occupiers “must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults,” which can mean taking steps beyond what would be needed for adult visitors.
• Skilled visitors (s 2(3)(b)): occupiers “may expect” such persons to appreciate and guard against special risks ordinarily incident to their calling, reducing what is required of the occupier as to those risks.

It is important to keep these modifications conceptually separate. The duty is always the same duty under s 2(2), but its content varies “in all the circumstances,” including the visitor’s age and skill. Additional statutory tools include s 2(4)(a) (warnings) and s 2(4)(b) (independent contractors). Warnings make a visitor “reasonably safe” only if adequate; and, distinct from skilled visitors, occupiers who use competent contractors may shift the burden for certain technical risks if reasonable checks are made.

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 where children are foreseeable visitors. Children are naturally curious and may wander, explore, and misjudge danger. Occupiers must anticipate childlike behaviour and take precautions commensurate with the age and likely behaviour of children on the premises.

Two recurring themes shape the analysis:

• Obviousness of the risk to a child of that age (not just to an adult).
• The presence of an allurement—something that positively attracts a child to a danger.

Allurements

An allurement is a particular attraction to children, increasing the likelihood of drawing them into a dangerous situation (for example, bright berries, boats, trampolines, construction mounds, water features). If an allurement is present, what is “reasonable” may require more than mere signage—physical separation, fencing, or removal may be necessary, depending on the risk and the age range of foreseeable visitors.

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.

The older the child, the more the law expects them to recognise obvious dangers; but allurements reduce the assumptions that can be made about a child’s self-protection.

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.

Obvious Risks and Age

The younger the child, the less weight courts give to the “obviousness” of a danger; and the more likely physical precautions (barriers, guards) will be required. For older children and teenagers, courts are more willing to treat some hazards as self-evident, particularly hazards of the adult world (e.g., railways) or open and obvious natural features (e.g., open water), so that warnings may be sufficient or even unnecessary. Two important strands:

• Very young children: occupiers must anticipate close supervision needs and the inability of the child to comprehend dangers. Parents cannot absolve occupiers entirely, but where an allurement is absent and the danger is clear to a supervising adult, courts can expect ordinary parental care.
• Older children and adolescents: courts may find no breach where the danger is obvious and not specially enticing to a child (for example, clearly hazardous natural features). Conversely, if the feature is an allurement or the risk is not obvious even to older children, precautions may still be needed.

Parental Responsibility

While occupiers owe a higher duty to children, the law also expects parents or guardians to exercise reasonable supervision. 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. That assumption is fact sensitive and weaker where a potent allurement exists or the layout positively invites unsupervised child use.

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.

Warnings and Children (s 2(4)(a))

Warnings can contribute to making visitors “reasonably safe.” However, a warning must be “enough” in the circumstances. For young children, signs alone often will not suffice (if they cannot read, or the risk remains attractive despite the sign). In such cases, the reasonable step is often physical separation (e.g., fencing) or removing the source of danger. Where the risk is obvious to parents and they are reasonably expected to supervise, a warning aimed at adults may be adequate.

Worked Example 1.3

An open-air heritage site includes a low wall bordering a steep drop. There are conspicuous warning signs and clear visual cues of the height. A 12-year-old goes beyond a rope barrier and falls. Is the occupier liable?

Answer:
Likely not. With prominent signs and a conspicuous, obvious drop, the site took reasonable steps. For a child of 12, a steep edge is an evident danger. Courts have recognised that some obvious risks need no further warning and that reasonable steps may include clear signage and minimal barriers, rather than full enclosure. If a rope barrier was present and the risk was evident, the duty was likely met under s 2(2) OLA 1957.

Allurements in Practice

Courts have treated as allurements bright berries, abandoned boats, ornamental or play-like objects, and sometimes apparently innocuous features that invite child play. Local authorities have been held liable where children were injured by exploring or playing with such features left on land under public control, especially where the nature of the danger was not appreciated by children or continued exposure was foreseeable.

Worked Example 1.4

A council leaves an abandoned small boat on grassland near a housing estate. Local children tinker with it over weeks, and a 14-year-old is injured when it collapses during play. There were no fences or warnings. Is the council liable?

Answer:
Probably yes. The boat was an evident allurement to children and it was foreseeable they would meddle with it and be exposed to risk. Reasonable steps included removal, fencing, or closely supervising clearance. The failure to address the continuing risk likely breaches s 2(2), read with s 2(3)(a), given the special lure. The approach aligns with the reasoning in Jolley v Sutton LBC.

Obvious Natural Features

The presence of open water or a natural drop may not, by itself, require extensive measures where the risk is obvious to children of sufficient age and to supervising adults, particularly in contexts like parks or coastal paths. In such cases, the higher child-duty is balanced by the obviousness of the risk and the impracticability of rendering all natural hazards safe. Still, factors such as proximity to play areas, previous incidents, or site-specific features can tilt the analysis towards taking more precautions.

Worked Example 1.5

A holiday park includes an ornamental pond with shallow margins but a deeper central area. A toddler strays and drowns. The pond has low edging and no physical barriers but is clearly visible; parents were nearby. Is the occupier liable?

Answer:
On these facts, likely no. The danger presented by a body of water is obvious to supervising adults and there was no special allurement beyond the water itself. Courts have been reluctant to require fencing around every natural or ornamental water feature where adults can readily appreciate and prevent the risk to toddlers. The duty under s 2(2), read with s 2(3)(a), will often be satisfied without fencing if adults can and should protect children from the evident hazard.

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 lowers the content of the duty concerning risks characteristic of the specialist’s work. The phrase “so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so” is central: if the occupier constrains the specialist’s ability to control the risk, the occupier cannot rely on the specialist’s skill as fully.

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.

Risks Ordinarily Incident to the Calling

The modified duty applies only to those dangers that are characteristic of the visitor’s trade and which a competent practitioner would be expected to understand and manage. The occupier can reasonably rely on the visitor’s training and equipment selection for that kind of risk. The reduction does not extend to:

• Dangers unrelated to the trade task (e.g., a defective staircase or loose balustrade on access routes).
• Unusual, concealed, or site-specific risks known (or reasonably knowable) to the occupier which the specialist would not reasonably anticipate.
• Situations where the occupier interferes with or restricts the visitor’s safety measures.

Worked Example 1.6

Two experienced chimney sweeps visit a house to work on blocked flues. They are warned of fumes and advised not to work while fires are lit. They nevertheless continue and are overcome by carbon monoxide. Are the occupiers liable?

Answer:
Likely no, as to the fume risk. The danger of carbon monoxide is characteristic of flue work. The occupiers had warned them and left them free to take precautions. Under s 2(3)(b), the occupier can expect specialists to guard against risks ordinarily incident to their calling. This mirrors Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117.

Worked Example 1.7

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, by its nature, 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 applies to risks ordinarily incident to the trade, not unusual or hidden dangers known to the occupier.

Hazards Outside the Calling

When injury results from general premises hazards—such as a rotten step on access stairs, a dangerous hole in a hallway, or inadequate lighting—the visitor’s skill in a particular trade is irrelevant. The occupier owes the full s 2(2) duty, unmodified by s 2(3)(b), to keep the specialist reasonably safe from those unrelated risks.

Worked Example 1.8

A glazier attends a property to replace a cracked pane. On exiting, a rotten tread on the main staircase gives way and he falls. Is the occupier liable?

Answer:
Likely yes. A decayed stair tread is a general premises danger unrelated to glazing. The reduced duty for specialists only applies to risks ordinarily incident to the specialist’s work. The occupier remains under the full duty in respect of general hazards on the premises that visitors (specialist or not) encounter.

“So Far as the Occupier Leaves Him Free to Do So”

The reduced duty assumes the specialist remains free to adopt protective measures consistent with good practice (e.g., isolating power, ventilating, erecting safe access). If the occupier insists on conditions that prevent those measures—by refusing to cut power or by requiring work in unsafe conditions—then it may be unreasonable to expect the specialist to guard against those risks, and liability can arise despite s 2(3)(b).

Warnings to Specialists

Warnings can discharge or contribute to discharge of the duty in two ways:

• A specific warning of an unusual, concealed, or site-specific risk enables the specialist to avoid or control it.
• As regards characteristic trade risks, clear warnings can emphasise that the occupier has left the specialist free to adopt appropriate safety measures.

A bare warning is not automatically enough. The question is whether, in all the circumstances, the warning was sufficient to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe (s 2(4)(a)). For characteristic trade risks, that threshold is often easier to meet than with child visitors.

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.

Additional Considerations That Commonly Arise

• Reasonable foreseeability of the presence of children: where a play area, school route, or family attraction suggests children will be present, the occupier should tailor precautions (e.g., fencing an allurement adjacent to play facilities).
• Time and persistence of risk: a long-standing hazard (abandoned structures or equipment) with evidence of child use increases the expectation of intervention beyond warnings.
• Economic and practical considerations: the duty is always one of reasonableness. Courts weigh the gravity and likelihood of harm against the cost/practicability of precautions, recognising that not all premises can be rendered harmless.
• Interplay with independent contractors (s 2(4)(b)): if a visitor is injured due to the faulty execution of work by a competent independent contractor engaged by the occupier, and the occupier took reasonable steps in selection and checking where appropriate, liability may rest with the contractor rather than the occupier. This is distinct from s 2(3)(b): the former concerns the occupier’s reliance on a contractor’s competence, not a visitor’s own skill.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The duty under s 2(2) OLA 1957 is to take reasonable care to make visitors reasonably safe for permitted purposes; the premises need not be risk free.
• For children (s 2(3)(a)):
  • Occupiers must anticipate that children are less careful than adults and may be drawn to allurements.
  • Allurements heighten the duty; fencing/guarding or removal may be required beyond warnings.
  • Warnings can be inadequate for young children; physical precautions may be necessary.
  • Parental supervision is relevant—very young children are commonly expected to be accompanied by responsible adults—but not an absolute shield where a potent allurement or concealed danger exists.
  • Obvious natural hazards (e.g., open water, sheer drops) may require fewer measures where the risk is evident to supervising adults and older children.
• For specialists (s 2(3)(b)):
  • The occupier may rely upon the specialist to guard against risks ordinarily incidental to their calling.
  • The reduced duty does not apply to dangers outside the trade task or to unusual/hidden site-specific risks known to the occupier.
  • The reduction applies only “so far as the occupier leaves the specialist free” to take appropriate safety measures; constraints imposed by the occupier can restore a higher duty.
• Warnings (s 2(4)(a)) must, in all the circumstances, be enough to render the visitor reasonably safe; for children, this often means more than signage.
• Do not conflate s 2(3)(b) with s 2(4)(b): the former is about expectations of specialist visitors; the latter concerns liability for the acts of competent independent contractors.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Allurement
• Specialist Visitor