Standard of care for different visitors (children, specialists)

Introduction

Occupiers' liability is a significant area of tort law that defines the duty of care owed by those who control premises to individuals entering those premises. The standard of care varies depending on the category of the visitor, particularly when dealing with children and specialists. Under the Occupiers' Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984, occupiers are required to ensure that visitors are reasonably safe while using the premises for the purposes for which they are permitted or invited to be there. Understanding the different standards of care owed to various types of visitors is essential within the legal framework governing occupiers' liability.

Legal Framework Under Occupiers' Liability Acts

The duties of occupiers in the United Kingdom are primarily governed by two statutes:

1. Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957): This Act outlines the duty of care owed to lawful visitors. Section 2(2) establishes the "common duty of care," requiring occupiers to ensure that visitors are reasonably safe in using the premises for their intended purposes.

2. Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (OLA 1984): This Act extends certain duties to trespassers, imposing a limited duty of care when the occupier is aware of the danger and knows that trespassers may come into the vicinity of that danger.

Defining Key Roles

• Occupier: As defined in Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552, an occupier is someone who has a sufficient degree of control over the premises to owe a duty of care.

• Visitor: Visitors are individuals who have express or implied permission to enter the premises, including those with contractual rights or legal authority to enter.

Special Considerations for Children

Children require a higher standard of care because they may not recognize potential risks that would be obvious to adults. Consequently, occupiers owe them a duty of care that exceeds that owed to adult visitors. The legal responsibilities toward child visitors are shaped by several principles.

Principles Guiding the Duty of Care Toward Children

1. Allurement Principle: Hazards that may attract children, although appearing harmless to adults, necessitate additional precautions. Occupiers must safeguard against features that could lure children into danger.

2. Age-Appropriate Precautions: Safety measures must be suitable for the age group of anticipated child visitors. Younger children may require more stringent protections.

3. Foreseeable Behavior: Occupiers should anticipate typical behaviors of children, such as climbing or exploring, when assessing potential hazards.

Relevant Case Law

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44

Context: A child died after consuming poisonous berries in a public park.

Decision: The occupier was held liable because the berries constituted an allurement to children, and the danger was not apparent to them. The court concluded that reasonable steps should have been taken to prevent access to the berries.

Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450

Context: A child was injured after falling into a trench on an unfenced building site.

Decision: The occupier was not held liable. The court determined that the danger was obvious, and reasonable parents would not have allowed young children to enter the site unaccompanied. There was an expectation of parental supervision in such circumstances.

Recommendations for Improving Safety for Child Visitors

1. Conduct Safety Assessments: Evaluate the premises from a child's view to identify potential hazards.

2. Implement Clear Warnings: Use age-appropriate signage to alert children and supervising adults to dangers.

3. Install Physical Barriers: Erect fences or barriers to prevent access to hazardous areas.

4. Regular Inspections: Perform frequent checks to identify and mitigate new risks promptly.

Standard of Care for Specialists

When specialists or professionals enter the premises to perform their duties, occupiers can expect that these individuals will appreciate and guard against risks associated with their skill. However, occupiers still have certain responsibilities toward specialists.

Principles for Occupiers Regarding Specialists

1. Assumption of Professional Knowledge: Occupiers may assume that specialists are aware of and will protect themselves against risks common in their trade.

2. Duty to Warn of Unusual Dangers: Occupiers must inform specialists of any non-obvious or unusual hazards that they may not anticipate.

3. Limited Reliance on Specialist Skill: While occupiers can rely on the specialist's ability to some extent, they cannot abdicate all responsibility for safety.

Relevant Case Law

Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117

Context: Chimney sweeps died from carbon monoxide poisoning while cleaning an operational boiler.

Decision: The occupiers were not held liable because the dangers were incidental to the sweeps' trade, and they had been warned of the specific risks. The court held that specialists should take measures to protect themselves against risks related to their work.

General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas [1953] AC 180

Context: A window cleaner was injured due to a defective window frame that gave way.

Decision: The occupier was held liable because the defect was not apparent, and the window cleaner could not have reasonably anticipated the danger. The occupier failed to maintain the premises in a safe condition.

Guidelines for Occupiers When Dealing with Specialists

1. Disclose Hidden Hazards: Inform specialists of any concealed dangers that are not related to their skills.

2. Clarify Boundaries: Clearly define the areas where the specialist will work and any restrictions.

3. Provide Necessary Information: Offer relevant details about the premises without interfering with the specialist’s professional judgment.

4. Ensure Safe Conditions: Maintain the premises to prevent accidents arising from defects unrelated to the specialist's work.

Factors Influencing Liability

Determining liability involves considering several factors:

1. Nature of the Premises: The type of property (e.g., public park, private residence, commercial building) can affect the standard of care required.

2. Foreseeability of Harm: Whether a reasonable occupier would have anticipated the risk of harm to the visitor.

3. Severity of Potential Harm: Greater precautions are needed when the potential harm is significant.

4. Practicability of Precautions: The cost and feasibility of safety measures are considered in assessing whether the occupier acted reasonably.

5. Visitor’s Purpose: The reason for the visitor's presence may influence the occupier's duty, especially if the visitor is on the premises for commercial purposes.

Conclusion

The standard of care owed by occupiers varies significantly between different categories of visitors, particularly concerning children and specialists. Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and relevant case law, occupiers must exercise greater care toward children, acknowledging that they may not recognize dangers apparent to adults. In Glasgow Corporation v Taylor, the court emphasized the necessity for occupiers to guard against alluring hazards that could attract children into harm's way.

Conversely, when dealing with specialists, occupiers can reasonably expect these professionals to be aware of and protect themselves against risks common in their work, as illustrated in Roles v Nathan. However, occupiers remain responsible for informing specialists of any non-obvious dangers unrelated to their skills.

The interaction between statutory duties and case law principles requires occupiers to assess each situation carefully. They must consider the characteristics of the visitor, the nature of potential hazards, and the practicality of implementing safety measures. This balanced approach ensures that occupiers fulfill their legal obligations while recognizing the varying abilities of different visitors to appreciate and avoid risks.