Learning Outcomes
After reading this article, you will understand the key principles of occupiers' liability under English law. You will be able to explain when the Occupiers' Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 apply, identify the legal duties owed to visitors and trespassers, and distinguish the obligations for different categories of claimant. You will be able to analyse problem questions, apply potential defences, and provide clear, exam-focused advice regarding liability for personal injury and property damage due to 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:
- 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
- Practical application in SQE2 scenario-based questions
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.
- What are the main statutory duties owed by occupiers to lawful visitors and to trespassers?
- Name two situations in which an occupier will owe a higher or lower duty of care to specific categories of visitor.
- If a guest in a hotel is injured after entering a restricted area marked "Staff Only," which Act applies, and why?
- 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.
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.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.
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.
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.
- Skilled visitors: A relevant professional (e.g. electrician, builder) can be expected to safeguard themselves against dangers associated with their work, potentially lowering the occupier’s duty in relation to those risks.
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.
Liability for Contractors
Occupiers can discharge their duty by properly checking and appointing competent independent contractors for technical works. The occupier should ensure:
- The work was properly entrusted to an independent contractor,
- The contractor was competent, and
- 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.
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:
- They are aware of a danger (or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists),
- They know (or should know) people might come into the vicinity of the danger, and
- 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.
Defences and Restrictions on Liability
Both Acts recognise defences:
- Warnings: May discharge the duty if sufficient for safety.
- Consent (volenti): Applies where the visitor knew and willingly accepted the specific risk.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
- An occupier is anyone with sufficient control of premises, not necessarily the owner.
- Special visitor categories (such as children and skilled visitors) require different degrees of care.
- Contractors must be competent, and reasonable checks must be made; otherwise, liability may remain with the occupier.
- Warnings only discharge duty if they make the claimant reasonably safe.
- Defences include warnings, consent, and contributory negligence; exclusion of liability is restricted in relation to personal injury or death.
- 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 may be reasonable to offer some protection.
Key Terms and Concepts
- occupier
- visitor
- premises
- trespasser