Core principles of tort - Occupiers' liability

Learning Outcomes

This article explains the core principles of occupiers' liability under English law, including:

• When the Occupiers' Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 apply, and the types of personal injury and property damage they cover
• The legal duties owed to lawful visitors and to trespassers/non-visitors, and how obligations differ between categories of claimant
• How to determine a claimant’s status as a “visitor” or “non-visitor” by analysing permission, purpose, time and area of entry
• The nature of occupiers’ liability as a statutory regime focused on dangers arising from the state of premises or things done or omitted on them
• How to evaluate the effectiveness of warnings, exclusion notices and reliance on independent contractors in discharging or limiting liability
• The narrower scope of the duty under the 1984 Act (limited to personal injury) compared with the wider duty under the 1957 Act
• The application of contributory negligence, consent (volenti) and other defences to occupiers’ liability claims
• How to approach and analyse SQE2-style problem questions and provide clear, exam-focused advice on liability for harm caused by the state of premises

SQE2 Syllabus

For SQE2, you are required to understand occupiers' liability as it applies to civil claims. This article covers major syllabus areas and will help structure your revision, especially. This article covers the following aspects of the syllabus:

• When the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and 1984 apply to claims for injury or property damage arising from the state of premises
• Who is an occupier and who qualifies as a visitor or trespasser
• The scope and standard of the common duty of care owed to lawful visitors under the 1957 Act
• Special considerations for children and skilled visitors
• The duty of care owed to trespassers and qualifying "non-visitors" under the 1984 Act
• Liability for damage caused by independent contractors
• The operation of defences such as warnings, voluntary assumption of risk (consent), contributory negligence, and statutory exclusions
• Exclusion of liability and statutory limitations (UCTA 1977 and CRA 2015)
• Practical application in SQE2 scenario-based questions, including adequacy of warnings and permission-limited areas
• The distinction between danger due to the state of premises (within the Acts) and injuries caused by activities (usually outside the Acts and addressed in common-law negligence)

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. What are the main statutory duties owed by occupiers to lawful visitors and to trespassers?
2. Name two situations in which an occupier will owe a higher or lower duty of care to specific categories of visitor.
3. If a guest in a hotel is injured after entering a restricted area marked "Staff Only," which Act applies, and why?
4. Is a clear warning always sufficient to absolve an occupier of liability for harm to visitors?

Introduction

Liability for harm on premises is governed primarily by statute. The Occupiers' Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 distinguish duties owed to visitors and trespassers. For SQE2, it is essential to identify when each Act applies, what standard of care is required, and which defences are available. Most claims will arise from personal injury or property damage due to dangers resulting from the state of the premises. This article breaks down the requirements and provides examples to illustrate core concepts.

It is important to keep in mind that both Acts are engaged where a danger arises from the condition of the premises or things done or omitted on them, not from activities carried out on the premises by people (which will typically be analysed under ordinary negligence). The 1957 Act governs duties to lawful visitors and permits recovery for personal injury and property damage. The 1984 Act imposes a much narrower duty to non-visitors (including trespassers), limited to reasonable steps to prevent personal injury.

Duties to Lawful Visitors: Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 imposes a "common duty of care" on occupiers towards lawful visitors.

Key Term: occupier
A person (or company) with sufficient control over premises to ensure safety of visitors. Occupation, not ownership, determines status.

An occupier is identified through the element of control. More than one person may be an occupier at the same time if each has sufficient control over the relevant part of the premises (for example, a brewery and the managers of a public house). A public authority that has taken control of premises, even without physical occupation, may also be treated as an occupier if it is responsible for securing or managing the site. In practice, landlords often remain occupiers of common parts they retain control over (e.g. stairwells), while independent contractors may temporarily be occupiers of areas under their control during works.

Key Term: visitor
A person the occupier permits or invites onto the premises, including implied permission (e.g. customers, delivery people) or entry permitted by law.

Visitors include those with express permission (invited guests), implied permission (customers or delivery personnel), entrants under contract (workpersons engaged to carry out services), and entrants with legal authority (e.g. police). Permission can be limited by area, time, or purpose. A person who exceeds the scope of permission (e.g., enters a door marked “Private/Staff Only” or uses the premises for an unpermitted activity) becomes a non-visitor for the purposes of the Acts.

The core obligation is to ensure visitors are "reasonably safe" in using the premises for the purpose for which they are permitted entry. The duty is not to guarantee premises are risk-free. The standard is objective and considers all the circumstances, including the nature of the premises, the purpose of the visit, the obviousness of risk, and any measures reasonably available to mitigate dangers.

Special Categories of Visitor

Some visitors require special consideration:

• Children: Occupiers must allow for the fact that children may be less careful than adults. Additional precautions, such as fencing off obvious dangers that might attract children, may be expected. Structures or features likely to lure children (allurements) warrant particular care, and where simple, practical measures can reduce risk (barriers, secure signage or removal of derelict items), failure to implement them may breach the duty, even if general warnings are posted. Reasonable parental supervision may be expected in some settings, but it will not displace the occupier’s obligation to consider child safety where the premises present significant hazards or allurements.
• Skilled visitors: A relevant professional (e.g. electrician, builder, roofer) can be expected to safeguard themselves against dangers associated with their work, potentially lowering the occupier’s duty in relation to those risks. This does not absolve the occupier where hidden or unexpected dangers exist, or where the risk goes beyond the ordinary incidents of the visitor’s calling. Clear, specific warnings which align with the visitor’s skill can be highly effective in discharging the duty.

Key Term: premises
Fixed or moveable structures (including land, buildings, vessels, vehicles, aircraft) covered by occupiers’ liability statutes.

Warnings

A warning will discharge the duty only if, considering all circumstances, it makes the visitor reasonably safe. Simply displaying a generic sign ("Enter at your own risk") is rarely enough. The warning must adequately inform the visitor of the specific danger, be suitably placed and visible, and be tailored to the likely audience (including children where relevant). Under the 1957 Act, warnings may suffice if they render the premises reasonably safe for the permitted use; in some cases, physical measures (barriers, lighting, temporary closure) are needed in addition to signage.

Liability for Contractors

Occupiers can discharge their duty by properly checking and appointing competent independent contractors for technical works. The occupier should ensure:

1. The work was properly entrusted to an independent contractor,
2. The contractor was competent, and
3. The work itself, where reasonable, was inspected by the occupier.

If any are lacking, the occupier may still be liable for harm to visitors due to the contractor’s faulty work.

In practice, the more technical the work (e.g. lift maintenance), the less the occupier is expected to verify the details of execution beyond reasonable steps to select a reputable contractor. Conversely, for straightforward tasks (e.g. clearing ice from steps), an occupier may reasonably be expected to recognise and address obvious defects in the work.

Duty to Trespassers and Non-Visitors: Occupiers' Liability Act 1984

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 imposes a limited duty on occupiers towards those not present with the occupier’s permission (trespassers and certain other non-visitors).

Key Term: trespasser
A person entering premises without invitation, permission, or legal authority, or remaining or venturing beyond permitted areas.

An occupier owes a duty if:

1. They are aware of a danger (or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists),
2. They know (or should know) people might come into the vicinity of the danger, and
3. The danger is one against which, in all the circumstances, it may be reasonable to offer some protection.

The duty under the 1984 Act is only to take reasonable care to prevent personal injury—not damage to property. The danger must be due to the state of the premises (e.g. concealed hazards, unsafe structures) rather than risks arising purely from activities undertaken by the claimant on the premises. Courts examine the obviousness of the risk, the likelihood of trespass, the practicality and cost of precautions, and the character of the premises (public access, recreational use, or remote industrial sites). Children may heighten foreseeability, though the limited nature of the duty remains.

Defences and Restrictions on Liability

Both Acts recognise defences:

• Warnings: May discharge the duty if sufficient for safety. For trespassers, adequate warnings (including barriers where appropriate) can be an effective means of meeting the limited duty under the 1984 Act.
• Consent (volenti): Applies where the visitor knew and willingly accepted the specific risk. The defence is narrowly construed; courts are slow to find complete acceptance of risk if a partial reduction of damages for contributory negligence will suffice. It is unlikely to defeat claims by rescuers acting under compulsion.
• Contributory negligence: Damages can be reduced if the claimant’s own carelessness contributed to the harm.
• Exclusion of liability: Business occupiers cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury to visitors. Liability for other loss may only be excluded if reasonable (1957 Act). Exclusion under the 1984 Act is legally uncertain; prudent occupiers should not rely on notices to exclude liability to trespassers.

Statutory controls shape exclusions to visitors. Under UCTA 1977 (for non-consumers) and the CRA 2015 (for consumers), business occupiers and traders:

• cannot exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence (including breach of the common duty of care under the 1957 Act),
• may exclude or limit liability for other loss only if the exclusion is reasonable (UCTA) or fair (CRA), having regard to all circumstances and the requirement of good faith in consumer contexts.

Worked Example 1.1

Francesca manages a leisure centre. During renovations, warning signs and cones surround a broken step in the entrance. Despite the warning, a regular adult visitor trips and breaks her ankle. Is Francesca (the occupier) likely to be liable?

Answer:
Only if the court finds that the warnings and protective measures were insufficient, considering all the circumstances. If the signs and barriers clearly alerted visitors and made the area reasonably safe, the duty was likely discharged. If the danger was hidden or the warnings inadequate, liability may still arise.

Worked Example 1.2

A nine-year-old child enters a public park and is drawn to an unfenced, derelict climbing frame with missing steps. Ignoring clear "Keep Off" signs, the child attempts to climb and suffers injury. Is the local authority liable?

Answer:
Possibly. The council must be prepared for children to be less careful. Even where warnings are posted, if the structure is an "allurement" to children and there were reasonable steps available (such as fencing or removal), failure to act may breach the duty. However, if parental responsibility can be expected, or if sufficient steps were taken, liability might not attach.

Worked Example 1.3

Martin, a roofer, visits premises to inspect a roof. He ignores a "Danger: Fragile Roof" sign and falls through a skylight while looking in an area outside the main access point. The occupier argues that Martin's specialist skill excuses liability. Is this correct?

Answer:
Generally, an occupier may expect a skilled visitor to appreciate and guard against risks within their professional skill set. However, if the occupier knew about hidden dangers that even a diligent roofer would not expect, or the warning was not visible, liability may still arise.

Worked Example 1.4

A hotel entrusts maintenance of its passenger lift to a well-known engineering firm. Shortly after servicing, the lift fails and injures a guest. The hotel had checked the contractor’s credentials but did not independently inspect the complex works. Is the hotel liable under the 1957 Act?

Answer:
Likely not. Where work is technical and properly entrusted to a competent contractor, an occupier is not expected to verify complex execution. Reasonable steps to appoint a competent firm can discharge the duty. If, however, the hotel knew of obvious defects post-servicing or selected an incompetent contractor without checks, liability could arise.

Worked Example 1.5

A coastal landowner knows teenagers sometimes access an unfenced cliff edge on the property. After past incidents, the owner erects highly visible “Danger—Cliff Edge” signs and places a simple post-and-rail barrier along common access points. A trespasser bypasses the barrier at dusk and falls. Can the claimant recover under the 1984 Act?

Answer:
Unlikely. The occupier knew of the danger and potential trespass, but the cliff edge is an obvious hazard, and reasonable protection (warnings and barrier) was offered. The limited duty to trespassers is to take reasonable care to prevent personal injury; given the steps taken and the nature of the risk, a court would likely find the duty met.

Exam Warning

A common SQE2 pitfall is assuming that any warning sign or disclaimer automatically excludes liability. Assess if the warning truly makes the visitor reasonably safe, and whether statutory limitations block attempts to exclude liability for personal injury or death.

For business occupiers and traders, exclusions are tightly controlled: no exclusion for death or personal injury; exclusions for other loss must be reasonable (UCTA) or fair (CRA). Under the 1984 Act, exclusion by notice is unsettled—do not assume a trespasser’s claim can be contractually ousted.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 provides a statutory common duty of care to lawful visitors; the 1984 Act creates a limited duty to trespassers for personal injury only.
• The Acts focus on dangers due to the state of premises; injuries from activities are usually analysed under ordinary negligence.
• An occupier is anyone with sufficient control of premises, not necessarily the owner; multiple occupiers can exist for different parts of premises.
• Visitors include those with express or implied permission and entrants with legal authority; exceeding permitted areas or purposes converts a visitor into a trespasser.
• Special visitor categories (such as children and skilled visitors) require different degrees of care: allow for children’s lack of prudence and professionals’ skill regarding risks of their calling.
• Contractors must be competent, and reasonable checks must be made; the more technical the work, the less an occupier is expected to verify execution; otherwise, liability may remain with the occupier.
• Warnings only discharge duty if they make the claimant reasonably safe; generic or poorly placed notices are inadequate.
• Defences include warnings, consent and contributory negligence; exclusion of liability is restricted for personal injury or death under UCTA 1977 and CRA 2015.
• Trespassers may receive protection under the 1984 Act only where the occupier knows of the danger, the likelihood of entry, and the risk is one against which it is reasonable to offer some protection.
• The 1984 duty is limited to personal injury; property damage claims by trespassers are outside the Act.

Key Terms and Concepts

• occupier
• visitor
• premises
• trespasser