Skip to main content
Back to resources
Private Law 11 min

Tort Law: Occupiers' Liability

Occupiers' liability explained: the duty owed to lawful visitors under the 1957 Act and to trespassers under the 1984 Act, with the key control, warning and obvious-risk cases.

Occupiers' liability governs harm suffered because of the state of premises. Two statutes split the question by the status of the entrant: the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 covers lawful visitors, and the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 covers trespassers and other non-visitors.

1. Who Is an Occupier?

There is no statutory definition. An occupier is the person with a sufficient degree of control over the premises, and there can be more than one occupier at the same time.

Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966]
AC 552
Ratio Decidendi:Occupation turns on control, not title. A person who has a sufficient degree of control over premises is an occupier, and two or more parties may be occupiers simultaneously.

2. Lawful Visitors: the 1957 Act

An occupier owes lawful visitors the common duty of care under section 2(2): a duty to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted to be there.

Children, warnings and contractors

An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults (s.2(3); Glasgow Corporation v Taylor, Jolley v Sutton LBC). A warning may discharge the duty if it is enough to keep the visitor reasonably safe (s.2(4)(a)). Damage from faulty work by an independent contractor will usually not bind the occupier where it was reasonable to entrust the work and check it (s.2(4)(b); Haseldine v Daw).

3. Trespassers: the 1984 Act

A duty to a trespasser arises only if the occupier is aware of the danger, knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the trespasser may come into its vicinity, and the risk is one against which they may reasonably be expected to offer some protection (s.1(3)).

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003]
UKHL 47
Ratio Decidendi:No duty arises in respect of obvious risks that a visitor or trespasser freely chooses to run. The 1984 Act does not require occupiers to guard against the ordinary and obvious dangers of, for example, diving into a shallow lake.

4. Worked Example

Scenario
A supermarket leaves a spillage unmarked for an hour. A shopper slips and is injured. The same evening a teenager climbs the locked perimeter fence and is hurt on machinery the manager knew was dangerous.

The shopper is a lawful visitor. The unmarked spillage is a breach of the common duty of care under s.2(2) of the 1957 Act, since a reasonable occupier would inspect and clear or sign it.

The teenager is a trespasser. A duty may arise under the 1984 Act because the manager knew of the danger and that intruders sometimes climbed in, so some protection (fencing, warnings, isolating the machinery) was reasonable.

Examiner Insights

Name the Act and the section
The single most common error is mixing the two regimes. Decide the entrant's status first, then apply the correct statute: 1957 Act for visitors, 1984 Act for trespassers. Pin your point to the section number.

Conclusion

Occupiers' liability rewards a disciplined structure: identify the occupier by control, classify the entrant, then apply the right statute and its key cases. Get the framework right and the marks follow.

Related guides

Practise this in the lab

Take your understanding of private law into the study lab and generate practice questions directly from this framework.

Start free trial