## Introduction

The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 sets out the duty of care owed by those who control premises to people lawfully on those premises. It replaces older common law categories and imposes a single, common duty of care. In simple terms, occupiers must take reasonable steps to ensure visitors are reasonably safe for the permitted purpose of their visit.

The duty covers both the state of the premises and activities carried out on them. To succeed in a claim, a claimant must show they were a lawful visitor, they suffered injury on the premises, and the occupier breached the common duty of care, causing that injury.

The Act allows some control over liability by notice or agreement, but exclusions are limited by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) in business contexts. It also sits alongside the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, which covers non-visitors (such as trespassers) and imposes a more limited duty. This guide focuses on the 1957 Act, with key comparisons where helpful.

## What You’ll Learn

- What counts as an occupier and what “premises” includes under the 1957 Act
- The meaning and scope of the common duty of care under section 2
- How the duty adjusts for children and skilled visitors
- When warnings are enough and when they are not
- How liability works for independent contractors’ work
- Available defences including volenti and contributory negligence
- How exclusion clauses interact with UCTA 1977
- Key cases that shape the application of the 1957 Act
- How the 1957 Act differs from the 1984 Act on trespassers

## Core Concepts

### Who is an occupier and what counts as premises

- Occupier: The Act does not define “occupier” precisely. In practice, it is the person with sufficient control over the premises to put matters right—often the owner, tenant, or manager. There can be more than one occupier at the same time.
- Premises: Section 1(3)(a) confirms that “premises” includes any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft. This wide scope captures shops, offices, parks, homes, car parks, and more.
- Visitors: Lawful visitors include those with express permission (e.g., customers, guests) and those with implied permission (e.g., postal workers, those using a public right of way through premises where applicable). A person may cease to be a visitor if they act beyond the permission given.

### The common duty of care

- Section 2(2) sets the standard: take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure the visitor is reasonably safe for the permitted purpose.
- Reasonableness is context-dependent. Relevant factors include:
  - Nature and characteristics of the premises
  - Purpose and behaviour of the visitor
  - Magnitude of risk and practicality of precautions
  - Cost and difficulty of remedial measures
- The duty covers both:
  - The state of the premises (e.g., unsafe steps)
  - Things done or omitted on the premises (e.g., hazardous activities occurring there)
- Limiting or excluding the duty:
  - Section 2(1) allows occupiers to restrict, modify, or exclude liability by agreement or notice, but only to the extent they are legally free to do so.
  - UCTA 1977 section 2: Exclusions for death or personal injury caused by negligence are void; exclusions for other loss (e.g., property damage) must pass the reasonableness test.

### Children and skilled visitors

- Children (section 2(3)(a)):
  - Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.
  - Extra precautions may be needed where hazards may attract or confuse children, even if they would be obvious to an adult.
  - Key case: Glasgow Corp v Taylor [1922] (poisonous berries in a park; failure to protect children from an alluring hazard).
- Skilled visitors (section 2(3)(b)):
  - Occupiers may expect professionals to guard against special risks ordinarily incident to their calling.
  - The occupier remains liable if the danger falls outside the visitor’s skillset or if the occupier’s conduct prevents the visitor from taking care.
  - Key case: Roles v Nathan [1963] (chimney sweeps and carbon monoxide risk; occupier not liable where specialists ignored a known hazard).

### Warnings and obvious risks

- Warnings (section 2(4)(a)):
  - A warning must, in all the circumstances, be enough to make the visitor reasonably safe. A sign alone is not always sufficient.
  - The warning must be clear, specific to the hazard, and positioned so it can be seen in time to be effective.
- Obvious risks:
  - Where a risk is obvious and already appreciated by the visitor, a warning may not be required.
  - Key case: Staples v West Dorset DC [1995] (slippery algae on a harbour wall; no need to warn of an obvious hazard already known to the claimant).

### Independent contractors and visitor status

- Independent contractors (section 2(4)(b)):
  - An occupier is not automatically liable for a danger caused by a contractor’s faulty work if:
    - It was reasonable to entrust the work to a contractor
    - The occupier took reasonable steps to select a competent contractor
    - Where appropriate, the occupier checked the work had been properly done
  - What is “reasonable” varies with the job’s complexity and risk.
- Visitor status and scope of permission:
  - A person’s status can depend on whether they are acting within the occupier’s permission.
  - Authority and sub-contracting can affect whether someone counts as a visitor (see Ferguson v Welsh).
  - If a person goes beyond the permitted purpose or area, they may lose visitor status (see Harvey v Plymouth CC).

### Defences: volenti and contributory negligence

- Volenti non fit injuria (section 2(5)):
  - No liability for risks willingly accepted by the visitor, provided they had full knowledge and a genuine choice.
  - Volenti is fact-specific and will not apply where consent is unclear or where the risk was not truly accepted.
  - White v Blackmore [1972] shows the limits of volenti where full understanding is absent.
- Contributory negligence:
  - Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, damages may be reduced to reflect the claimant’s share of responsibility.
  - In sports and similar activities, participants may be taken to accept ordinary risks of the game, though this is not a blanket defence. Simms v Leigh RFC [1969] is an example where the claim failed due to accepted risk.

## Key Examples or Case Studies

- Glasgow Corp v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44
  - Child ate poisonous berries in a public park.
  - Held: Occupier liable; greater care owed to protect children from alluring hazards.
  - Use: Extra precautions where children are likely to be present.

- Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117
  - Chimney sweeps died from carbon monoxide while sealing a flue.
  - Held: Occupier not liable; specialists expected to guard against risks of their trade.
  - Use: Section 2(3)(b) supports reliance on skilled visitors’ competence.

- Staples v West Dorset DC [1995] 93 LGR 536
  - Claimant slipped on algae on a harbour wall.
  - Held: No duty to warn of an obvious danger already appreciated by the claimant.
  - Use: Warnings must add real safety value.

- White v Blackmore [1972] 2 QB 651
  - Injury at a motor event involving safety ropes and an exclusion notice.
  - Held: Exclusion clause effective on its terms, but volenti failed without full awareness of the risk.
  - Use: Distinguish between contractual exclusions (subject to UCTA) and volenti.

- Simms v Leigh RFC [1969] 2 All ER 923
  - Rugby player injured when tackled into a wall.
  - Held: Claim failed; risk was within what players accept in contact sport.
  - Use: Accepted risks can defeat or reduce claims depending on facts.

- Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1082
  - Teen injured while attempting to repair an abandoned boat left by the council.
  - Held: Precise mechanism need not be foreseeable; broad type of harm to children sufficed.
  - Use: Foreseeability for children is assessed broadly.

- Ferguson v Welsh [1987] 1 WLR 1553
  - Sub-contracting contrary to instructions; worker injured.
  - Held: Worker still a visitor due to apparent authority.
  - Use: Visitor status may arise via the occupier’s conduct and authority given to contractors.

- Harvey v Plymouth CC [2010] EWCA Civ 860
  - Claimant fled a taxi without paying and ran through a park, falling on uneven ground.
  - Held: Not a visitor for that non-recreational use; implied permission did not extend to the activity undertaken.
  - Use: Scope of permission matters; going beyond it can remove visitor status.

- Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2004] 1 AC 46 (1984 Act)
  - Diver injured after entering a lake contrary to warnings.
  - Held: No duty to protect against an obvious risk created by the claimant’s choice, under the 1984 Act.
  - Use: For trespassers and non-visitors, the 1984 Act sets a narrower duty.

## Practical Applications

- Identify occupiers: Work out who has control. There may be multiple occupiers sharing duties.
- Map visitor categories: Customers, contractors, delivery drivers, school groups, and others. Consider their likely behaviour.
- Assess risks regularly: Focus on foreseeable hazards and reasonably practicable controls.
- Prioritise child safety: Remove or secure alluring hazards; use fencing or barriers where appropriate.
- Manage skilled visitors: Provide relevant information and safe systems; do not interfere with safe professional practice.
- Use effective warnings: Make them clear, specific, and well placed. Avoid generic signs that add little.
- Select and monitor contractors: Check competence, insurance, and method statements; verify critical work on completion.
- Review exclusions and notices: For business premises, ensure terms comply with UCTA 1977. Avoid exclusions for death or personal injury.
- Train staff: Reporting lines for hazards, incident response, and visitor management.
- Document everything: Risk assessments, maintenance records, contractor checks, signage reviews, and incident logs.
- Plan for events and sports: Consider barriers, padding, and stewarding; recognise accepted risks but address avoidable hazards.
- Reassess after incidents: Update controls and signage; consider whether visitor permissions or routes need adjustment.

## Summary Checklist

- Apply section 2(2): reasonable care to keep visitors reasonably safe for permitted purposes
- Adjust for children under section 2(3)(a): anticipate reduced care by young visitors
- Apply section 2(3)(b) for skilled visitors: expect competence within their trade
- Use warnings effectively under section 2(4)(a): they must make visitors reasonably safe
- Handle contractors under section 2(4)(b): choose competent firms and check critical work
- Limit or exclude liability only within the law: UCTA 1977 blocks exclusions for death/personal injury
- Consider defences: volenti (section 2(5)) and contributory negligence (1945 Act)
- Watch visitor status and scope of permission: conduct beyond permission may defeat claims
- Keep records: risk assessments, training, inspections, and incident reports

## Quick Reference

| Topic                      | Section/Case                         | Point                                                      |
| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------- |
| Common duty of care        | OLA 1957 s.2(2)                      | Reasonable care to keep visitors reasonably safe           |
| Children                   | OLA 1957 s.2(3)(a); Glasgow v Taylor | Greater care where hazards may attract or confuse children |
| Skilled visitors           | OLA 1957 s.2(3)(b); Roles v Nathan   | Expect professionals to guard against trade risks          |
| Warnings and obvious risks | OLA 1957 s.2(4)(a); Staples          | Warning must be sufficient; obvious risks may need none    |
| Independent contractors    | OLA 1957 s.2(4)(b)                   | Reasonable selection and, where appropriate, inspection    |
| Exclusions and defences    | UCTA 1977 s.2; OLA 1957 s.2(5)       | No exclusion for death/PI; volenti may bar liability       |

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957: Duties to Visitors