## Introduction

The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 sets out when and how a person in control of premises owes a duty of care to those who enter lawfully. Rather than relying on old common-law categories such as ​“invitee” and ​“licensee”, the Act introduces one consistent test: the **common duty of care**.

Anyone with sufficient control over land, buildings, vessels or other structures may be an “occupier”. That can include owners, tenants, contractors, or public authorities. The duty is to take **reasonable** steps to keep visitors safe; it is not an insurance policy for every mishap. Courts look at the circumstances—type of premises, purpose of the visit, obviousness of the danger, age of the visitor—before deciding whether an occupier is liable.

## What You'll Learn

- How the Act defines an **occupier** and **premises**
- The contents of the **common duty of care** in s.2
- Special rules for **children** and **skilled visitors**
- Leading cases such as _Wheat v Lacon_ and _Roles v Nathan_
- Practical ways to manage risk, warnings, and insurance

## Core Concepts

### Who Is an Occupier?

1. Control Test (s.1(2))
   - An occupier is anyone with enough control to put the premises right if danger arises.
   - Several people can share this role at the same time (_Wheat v Lacon_ [1966]).

2. Premises (s.1(3)(a))
   - Includes land, buildings and moveable structures such as ladders, caravans or ships.
   - The duty therefore ranges from private homes to public parks and adventure playgrounds.

### The Common Duty of Care

Section 2(1) requires the occupier to make the visitor **reasonably safe** for the purpose for which they are invited or permitted to be there. It is judged objectively but allows room for:

- **Warnings (s.2(4)(a))**: Adequate notices can discharge the duty if a danger is obvious and the warning is clear.
- **Independent Contractors (s.2(4)(b))**: If work is delegated to competent contractors, liability can shift to them.

> Note: The Act does not apply to trespassers; injuries to them fall under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.

### Special Classes of Visitor

1. Children (s.2(3)(a))
   - Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults (_Glasgow Corporation v Taylor_ [1922]).
   - Guarding ponds, enclosing machinery, and placing warnings at child height are typical steps.

2. Persons Exercising a Calling (s.2(3)(b))
   - Professionals are expected to protect themselves against ordinary risks of their work (_Roles v Nathan_ [1963]).
   - The duty may therefore be lighter when an electrician visits a switchboard or a roofer works at height.

## Key Examples or Case Studies

1. Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552
   - A paying guest fell on an unlit staircase in a pub.
   - Held: Both the brewery (freeholder) and the manager (tenant) were occupiers. Control, not title, is decisive.

2. Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117
   - Chimney sweeps ignored warnings and died from carbon monoxide.
   - Held: The sweeps should have guarded against that danger; the occupier had acted reasonably.

3. Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2003] UKHL 47
   - A visitor ran and dived into a lake despite clear “No Swimming” signs, breaking his neck.
   - Held: The danger was the claimant’s own action; the council was not obliged to spend money to remove every risk.

4. Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450
   - A five-year-old fell into a trench on open land.
   - Held: Parents were expected to supervise very young children; the occupier had taken reasonable care.

## Practical Applications

1. Risk Assessment
   - Inspect premises routinely. Identify tripping hazards, slippery floors, faulty lighting and unsecured edges.
   - Keep written records; they are persuasive evidence if litigation follows.

2. Warnings and Barriers
   - Signs must be visible, specific and in plain language.
   - Physical barriers such as fences or locked doors can demonstrate reasonable care where signage alone is insufficient.

3. Contractors and Maintenance
   - Vet contractors for competence; ask for insurance certificates and references.
   - Provide clear instructions and supervise where appropriate, especially in public areas.

4. Insurance
   - Public liability cover is essential for businesses and landlords.
   - Review limits annually to reflect changes in turnover, footfall or property size.

5. Record-Keeping
   - Document cleaning schedules, repairs, safety briefings and staff training.
   - In court, contemporaneous paperwork often proves decisive.

## Summary Checklist

- Identify every person with **control**; there can be more than one occupier.
- Review premises type, visitor purpose and any obvious dangers.
- Apply **higher care** for children; rely more on skill for professionals.
- Use clear warnings and barriers where risk remains.
- Keep records and maintain public liability insurance.

## Quick Reference

| Topic                  | Statute / Case         | Main Point                                         |
| ---------------------- | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- |
| Definition of occupier | s.1(2) OLA 1957        | Control, not ownership, creates the duty           |
| Common duty of care    | s.2(1) OLA 1957        | Reasonable safety for permitted purpose            |
| Children               | s.2(3)(a) OLA 1957     | Must expect less care from minors                  |
| Skilled visitors       | s.2(3)(b) OLA 1957     | Professionals guard against risks of their calling |
| Shared occupation      | _Wheat v Lacon_ [1966] | More than one occupier can owe the duty            |


Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957: Duties to Lawful Visitors