• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Under what circumstances will an occupier be liable for injuries or other losses suffered by persons on his land?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Under what circumstances will an occupier be liable for injuries or other losses suffered by persons on his land? The question of occupier's liability is simple in fact, but complex in terms of the various definitive elements it contains, as well as posing a challenge to answer concisely, given the vastness and detail of pertinent statute as well as case-law. The following essay will attempt to address the issue with briefness and precision, beginning with defining the term "occupier" and then considering the classes of persons to whom an occupier would be liable, as well as the degrees and circumstances of this liability. Definition of an "occupier" A person is generally considered to be an "occupier" whenever he "has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realize that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person coming lawfully there... In order to be an occupier it is not necessary for a person to have entire control over the premises. ...read more.

Middle

There has been some debate over whether this "common duty of care" is owed in that the occupier should take reasonable steps to prove that the visitor is not injured solely by reason of the state of the premises or whether the things done on the premises should be an additional factor. While section 1(1) of the act seems to support the latter view in providing that the 1957 Act will "regulate the duty which an occupier of premises owes to his visitors in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them". However, this phrase was re-interpreted by the Court of Appeal in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd3, which ruled that the former interpretation was correct. There are, however, some circumstances in which the concept of "the common duty of care" is not applied, two in particular - 1) Exclusion of duty: Under section 2(1) of the Act, an occupier is free to "restrict, modify or exclude this duty to a visitor by agreement or otherwise". ...read more.

Conclusion

Neighbours: An occupier of premises is expected to take reasonable steps to eliminate the threat of danger posed by a dangerous situation arising on his land that could potentially endanger his neighbour's land, as in the case of Goldman v Hargrave5 lightnight struck on the defendant's land set fire to it, and the defendant did not do enough to prevent the fire from spreading to his claimant neighbour's land. The claimant was successful in his claim and recovered damages for compensation. There is, however, some debate as to whether an occupier owes his neighbour a duty of care to prevent his land from becoming a source of danger to the neighbour's land. This question was raised in Smith v Littlewoods6, where vandals broke into the defendant's abandoned land and a fire was started, spreading to the claimant's land. The House of Lords dismissed the case, stating that the fire was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendants having abandoned their land. 1 Lord Denning in Wheat v E Lacon & Co. Ltd [1996] AC 552, 577 2 Ferguson v Welsh [1987] 1 WLR 1553,1563, per Lord Goff 3 [2002] 1 WLR 1052 4 [1996] QB 567 5 [1967] AC 645 6 [1987] AC 241 ?? ?? ?? ?? 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Tort Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Tort Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Problem question on Occupiers liability Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    According to Jane, her experiment will "save western civilisation." Viewing the case of Adams v Ursell7 this defence cannot be used to say that there is "an overall public benefit associated with the activity which outweighs loss to the claimant." However, Jane may base her argument on the fact that Western civilisation is of much greater importance than Karl's complaints (Dennis v Ministry of Defence8.)

  2. Duty of Care.

    the information of the council and that no responsibility whatsoever was implied or accepted for the value or condition of the property. The plaintiffs could not see the report. But they assumed that the house was at least worth the value said.

  1. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002].

    The issue then became whether this fault had caused McGhee's dermatitis. The House of Lords found that the defendant was liable. But in McBride and Bagshaw, Tort Law, pp 483-5, we state that the "decision [in McGhee] is very difficult to explain" and offer four possible interpretations of it.

  2. Pete could be liable for the psychiatric injury suffered by Alan. The term psychiatric ...

    of comforting and providing first aid to Pete who was screaming in agony and covered in blood, and that this would be foreseeable in a person of normal fortitude. In McFarlane v E Caledonia Ltd8 it was held that a bystander however could not recover for injury.

  1. But Parliament has made it clear that in the case of a lawful visitor, ...

    The imposition of a statutory duty under the 1957 and 1984 Acts has given good effect to the intention of Parliament to ensure that occupiers of premises (which covers premises as diverse as airplanes, shops, harbour beacons, beaches and railway carriages), take a responsible attitude to ensure that safety is paramount.

  2. Tort essay

    He stated, "Negligence is an act to do something that the reasonable man in the same circumstances would do or doing something that a cautious reasonable man would not do." From this quote, it showed the foundation of the "Reasonable Man Test".

  1. A Critical Examination of the Concept of Breach of Duty of Care

    Ordinary negligence is the want of ordinary diligence; 2. Slight or less than ordinary negligence is the want of great diligence; 3. Gross or more than ordinary negligence is the want of slight diligence. Three great principles of responsibility seem naturally to follow this division.

  2. Tort Law Essay . The purpose of this essay will be to advise on ...

    In contrast to this, David was present at the scene in its immediate aftermath and since the close tie of love and affection is present, it is very likely with reference to McLoughlin v. O?Brian that he would succeed in a claim as a secondary victim.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work