Occupiers' Liability: Lawful Visitors (1957 Act)

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 governs the duty of care owed by occupiers of premises to their lawful visitors. This is a statutory tort — the duty and its scope are defined by the Act rather than the common law, although case law is essential for interpreting and applying the statutory provisions. This lesson examines the key concepts of "occupier," "premises," and "visitor," the nature and scope of the common duty of care under s2, the special provisions for children and skilled visitors, and the role of warnings, exclusion clauses, and independent contractors.

---

Background and Purpose

Before the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, the common law distinguished between different categories of entrant (invitees, licensees, and trespassers) and applied different standards of care to each. This produced a complex and unsatisfactory body of law. The 1957 Act replaced the common law rules for lawful visitors with a single statutory duty — the common duty of care.

The Act applies to all lawful visitors (those who have express or implied permission to be on the premises). Trespassers are covered by the separate Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (see the next lesson).

---

Key Definitions Under the Act

Who Is an "Occupier"?

The Act does not define "occupier." The courts have held that an occupier is a person who exercises a sufficient degree of control over the premises to be responsible for their safety.

Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966]

Aspect	Detail
Facts	A brewery (Lacon) owned a pub. The manager and his wife lived upstairs and let out rooms to paying guests. A guest fell down an unlighted staircase and was killed. The question was whether the brewery was an "occupier" of the upstairs area.
Decision	The House of Lords held that both the brewery and the manager could be occupiers simultaneously. An occupier is anyone who has a sufficient degree of control over the premises. There can be more than one occupier of the same premises.
Principle	Occupation is based on control, not ownership. Multiple persons can be occupiers of the same premises at the same time.

What Are "Premises"?

Section 1(3)(a) defines premises broadly. They include:

• Land and buildings
• Fixed and movable structures (including vessels, vehicles, and aircraft)
• Ladders, scaffolding, and other temporary structures

Who Is a "Visitor"?

A visitor is a person who has express or implied permission to be on the premises. Section 1(2) provides that the common duty of care applies to all persons who would at common law have been treated as invitees or licensees.

Categories of visitor include:

Category	Example
Express permission	A dinner guest, a customer in a shop
Implied permission	A person using a short-cut path that the occupier has knowingly permitted; a delivery person
Contractual entrant	A hotel guest, a ticket-holder at a sports ground (s5(1))
Those with a legal right of entry	Police officers, utility company inspectors, firefighters

A visitor who exceeds the scope of their permission ceases to be a visitor and becomes a trespasser. For example, a customer in a shop who enters a private "Staff Only" area without permission is no longer a visitor in that area.

---

The Common Duty of Care: Section 2(2)

flowchart TD
    A["Occupiers' Liability<br/>Act 1957"] --> B["S2(2): Common<br/>Duty of Care"]
    B --> C["Duty to take such care<br/>as is reasonable to see<br/>that the visitor is<br/>reasonably safe"]
    C --> D["Note: The VISITOR must<br/>be safe, not the<br/>PREMISES"]
    B --> E["Special provisions"]
    E --> F["S2(3)(a):<br/>Children"]
    E --> G["S2(3)(b):<br/>Skilled visitors"]
    E --> H["S2(4)(a):<br/>Warnings"]
    E --> I["S2(4)(b):<br/>Independent<br/>contractors"]

    style A fill:#1a5276,color:#fff
    style C fill:#27ae60,color:#fff

Section 2(2) states:

"The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there."

Key points:

1. The duty is to ensure the visitor is reasonably safe — not that the premises are safe. This distinction matters: a warning sign or barrier may make the visitor safe even if the hazard on the premises remains.
2. The duty applies in respect of the purposes for which the visitor is on the premises.
3. The standard is one of reasonableness — the occupier is not an insurer of the visitor's safety.

---

Children: Section 2(3)(a)

Section 2(3)(a) provides:

"An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults."

This means the occupier owes a higher standard of care to children. What is reasonably safe for an adult may not be reasonably safe for a child. The occupier must take account of the fact that children may not appreciate dangers that would be obvious to adults.

Key Cases on Children

Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955]

Aspect	Detail
Facts	A 5-year-old boy fell into a trench dug on open land where children regularly played. The occupier knew children played there.
Decision	The court held that while the occupier must take greater care for children, a prudent parent would not allow a child of that age to play unsupervised on such land. The occupier was entitled to assume that parents would exercise reasonable supervision of young children.
Principle	The occupier's duty to children may be discharged if the occupier can reasonably expect that parents will provide supervision.

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922]