1

[OCCUPIERS LIABILITY]
1. Discussions about Occupie s Liabi!it"# The liability to visitors is covered by the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and the liability to trespassers covered by the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. The 1957 Act deals with law ul visitors and the 1984 Act deals with trespassers. The occupier !eans the person in control o the land" buildin#" pre!ises" shop" warehouse" car par$ etc % in act" the 1957 Act has even been held to cover ships" hovercra t" sca oldin# and &uaysides" the scope is &uite wide indeed. The 'occupier !i#ht be a local authority" a co!pany" an individual or a partnership. It is $ita! in a!! cases to co ect!" i%enti&" t'e occupie ( as it is a)ainst t'is pe son o pe sons t'at a c!ai* &o !oss+%a*a)e a ises. Un%e Section 1,-. OLA 1/01 an% Section 1,-. o& OLA 1/23( t'e %e&inition o& Occupie e*ains t'e sa*e as at co**on !a4. T'e cu ent test o& Occupie is to be &oun% in t'e 5u%)e*ent o& Lo % Dennin) in t'e 6ouse o& Lo %s case in 7'eat 8 E Lacon 9 Co. Li*ite%. It 4as sai% t'at :4'e e$e a pe son 'as a su&&icient %e) ee o& cont o! o$e p e*ises t'at 'e ou)'t to ea!ise t'at an" &ai!u e on 'is pa t to ta;e ca e *a" esu!t in in5u " to a pe son co*in) !a4&u!!" t'e e( t'en 'e is an Occupie an% t'e pe son co*in) !a4&u!!" t'e e is 'is $isito <
T6E OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT( 1/01# The occupier !eans the person in control o

the land" buildin#" pre!ises" shop" warehouse" car par$ etc % in act" the 1957 Act has even been held to cover ships" hovercra t" sca oldin# and &uaysides" the scope is &uite wide indeed. The 'occupier !i#ht be a local authority" a co!pany" an individual or a partnership. The Act applies not only to land and buildin#s but also to i(ed and !oveable structures" includin# any vessel" vehicle or aircra t Sec 1,=.,a. which indicates any i(ed or !ovable structures" which dee!ed to be pre!ises. The occupier owes a duty o care to all law ul visitors Sec 1,-. which re&uires such a person to have had the occupiers e(press or i!plied per!ission to co!e on to the pre!ises and includes those e(ercisin# a contractual ri#ht o entry. The ac$nowled#ed test or 'occupation can be ound in the case o 7'eat 8 E Lacon 9 Co. Li*ite%. )t was said that *wherever a person has a su icient de#ree o control over pre!ises that he ou#ht to realise that any ailure on his part to ta$e care !ay result in in+ury to a person co!in# law ully there" then he is an Occupier and the person co!in# law ully there is his visitor,. A do# can be a visitors or trespassers. As a do# is the property o the trespasser or visitors in law. -er status would obviously be relevant in relation to .o#. /ec. 0 102 o the Act is &uite clear" it states that *the co!!on duty o care is a duty to ta$e such care as in all the circu!stances o the case is reasonable to see that the

visitor will be reasonably sa e in usin# the pre!ises or the purpose or which he is invited or per!itted to be there., /ec. 0 132 a o the Act is &uite clear interestin#ly" the Act ac$nowled#es that *an occupier !ust be prepared or children to be less care ul that adults. [7a nin) >otice] The issue o whether the notice erected at the entrance su iciently warned visitors o any ris$ or dan#er !ust be deter!ined.
In ?!as)o4 Co po ation $ Ta"!o [1/--]( the corporation council were ound liable when a youn# child ate poisonous berries in a !unicipal par$. /i!ilarly in 4olley v /utton L56 708889" the -ouse o Lords decided that i da!a#e is oreseeable" then there is the liability" even i the way in which it is caused is not oreseeable. In Da4son $ Scottis' Po4e P!c [1///] the court ound /cottish :ower liable when an eleven year old boy had cli!bed over the ence surroundin# an electricity sub; station" was electrocuted. The boy was ound one third contributory ne#li#ent. The ence was si( eet hi#h" but soil had built up at the base o the ence" !a$in# it only our eet hi#h. 5y the way" the ence was topped with spi$es and had warnin# notices statin# '.an#er o death % <eep out. )n all these cases" the courts ound that it was reasonably oreseeable that a child would beco!e in+ured due to the occupiers ne#li#ence. =ather sensibly" the 1957 Act reco#nises that e(perts wor$in# on the property will *..... appreciate and #uard a#ainst any special ris$s ....., /ec. 0 1321b2. /o" in =oles v >athan 719?39" the occupier was not held liable or the death o 0 1two2 chi!ney sweeps by reason o carbon !ono(ide and in @eneral 6leanin# 6ontractors v 6hrist!as the occupier was not liable when their window closed on 6hrist!as hand" causin# hi! to all. As a window cleaner" he should have ta$en such precautions to prevent this % he should have been aware o the special ris$s % a ter all" he was a window cleanerA )n any event" his e!ployer was liable as they had not provided a sa e syste! o wor$ 1thats another interestin# area o tort law2. @enerally" warnin# si#ns and notices should be speci ic. )t is not enou#h or an occupier to erect a si#n statin# '5BCA=B or '.A>@B=OD/. )n /taples v Cest .orset .istrict 6ouncil 719959" the 6ourt o Appeal ound or the 6ouncil. /i!ply" when you wal$ on slippery stones" there is a #ood chance you will slip and all. Eou dont really need a warnin# si#n now" do youF 5y the way" i you see a si#n that says so!ethin# li$e 'Ce do not accept responsibility ro! in+ury caused on these pre!ises" its unlaw ul by reason o the Dn air 6ontracts Act 1977 /ec. 0112. 5ut" o course" the occupiers $now that and hope that you dont. In To*!inson $ Con)!eton Bo ou)' Counci! [-@@=] where in Gay 1995" the clai!ant" 4ohn To!linson visited an arti icial la$e" part o a country par$ iwith his riends. Chile To!linson dived into the water and hit his head on the dirty botto!" leavin# hi! tetraple#ic as a result o a brea$ to the i th vertebra o his nec$. -e subse&uently brou#ht proceedin#s a#ainst 6on#leton 5orou#h 6ouncil under the OccupiersH Liability Act 1984 1as a trespasser2" clai!in# or loss o earnin#s" loss o &uality o li e and the cost o the care he would re&uire as a result o his in+uries. )t was held by the 6ourt that the 4a nin) notice provided by the Occupier was held to

3 be su icient in order to inde!ni y the occupier ro! his liability towards the potential trespassers.

)t deals with the duty owed to persons 'other than visitors and by this it !eans 'trespassers. /ec. 1132 o the 1984 Act states the occupier owes a duty i I
>o4( t'e 1/23 Act is so*e4'at %i&&e ent. a2 b2 c2 -e is aware o the dan#er. -e has reasonable #round to believe that the person is in the vicinity o the dan#er or !ay co!e into the vicinity o dan#er. -e should be reasonably e(pected to o er the person so!e protection.

Hence , it would appear that all 3 (three) elements required for the imposition of liability on Occupier under Sec 1 (3) of the 198 !ct are present" /ec. 11?2 provides that no duty is owed to persons who willin#ly accepts ris$s. This was the !ain point o To!linson v 6on#leton 708849" where the clai!ant beca!e in+ured when he dived into a pool at a country par$. -e i#nored the warnin# si#ns and beca!e seriously in+ured. Chen he entered the water" he beca!e a trespasser. 7'o is an occupie A >either OccupiersH Liability Act de ines JoccupierJ. The de inition !ust be sou#ht in case law. The currently applicable test or the status o JoccupierJ is the de#ree o occupational control. The !ore control one has over certain pre!ises" the !ore li$ely he is to be considered JoccupierJ or the purposes o the two OccupiersH Liability Acts. Gore than one person at the sa!e ti!e can have the status o occupier. Occupier is a person who has su icient de#ree o control over the pre!ises to put hi! under a duty o care towards those who ca!e law ully upon the pre!ises. )n Cheat Lacaon K 6o. *where the unction o the occupiers liability is on occupational control not e(clusive possession,. Tenants an% !icensees 5oth tenants and licensees will be occupiers o property where they live. Licensees will usually share the status o occupier with the owner. O4ne s Owners o let property will be occupiers o those areas which they have not let by de!ise and over which they have retained control 7such as the co!!on staircase in lat buildin#9. ) the tenancy a#ree!ent i!poses upon the owner the duty to carry out repairs" he will be co;responsible with the tenant or the conditions o the pre!ises as occupier. 7'o is an T espasse A A trespasser is so!eone who is not authoriLed to be on the property at issue. Landowners are not obli#ated to protect trespassers who enter their property without per!ission" but they cannot will ully in+ure the!. Also" i a landowner

$nows ;; or should $now ;; that there are re&uent trespassers on hisMher property" he or she will be liable or any in+uries caused by an unsa e condition on the property The de inition o trespasser was #iven by the -ouse o Lords in A%%ie $ Du*b ea; where the de endant owned View Park Colliery which was situated in a ield ad+acent to a road. There was a ence around the border o the ield althou#h there were lar#e #aps in the ence. The ield was re&uently used as a short cut to a railway station and children would use it as a play#round. The de endant would o ten warn people o the land but the atte!pts were not e ective and no real atte!pt was !ade to ensure that people did not co!e onto the land. A child ca!e on to the land and was $illed when he cli!bed onto a piece o carryin# e&uip!ent. )t was held that >o duty o care was owed to trespassers to ensure that they were sa e when co!in# onto the land. )n Addie" the -ouse o Lords had held that an occupier o pre!ises was only liable to a trespassin# child who was in+ured by the occupier intentionally or rec$lessly. In 6e in)ton( their Lordships held that a di erent approach was accepted in the chan#ed social and physical conditions. They o erred the test o 'common humanity' which involves an investi#ation o whether the occupier has done all that a hu!ane person would have done to protect the sa ety o the trespasser and subse&uently A%%ie 4as !odi ied by the -ouse o Lords in B itis' Rai!4a"s Boa % $ 6e in)ton where a si( year old boy was electrocuted and su ered severe burns when he wondered ro! a play par$ onto a live railway line. The railway line was surrounded by a ence however" part o the ence had been pushed down and the #ap created had been used re&uently as a short cut to the par$. The de endant was aware o the #ap in the ence which had been present or several !onths" but had ailed to do anythin# about it. Dnder e(istin# authority o Addie v .u!brec$ no duty o care was owed to trespassers. -owever" the -ouse o Lords departed ro! their previous decision and held that the de endant railway co!pany did owe a duty o co**on 'u*anit" to trespassers.
IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, THE OCCUPIER MAY ESCAPE FROM HIS LIABILITY:

In%epen%ent cont acto s

)ndependent contractors wor$in# on the property !ay also be covered by the concept o JoccupierJ i they e(ercise su icient control over the pre!ises. /ection 0 142 1b2 provides that i da!a#e caused to a visitors due to the aulty e(ecution o any wor$ o construction !aintenance" repair by an )ndependent 6ontractor e!ployed by hi!" the occupier is not liable i he had acted reasonably in entrustin# the wor$ to the contractor and he is satis ied that the contractor is co!plete and wor$ properly done. This section clearly su##est that an occupier will not be liable in the above circu!stances and too$ reasonable steps to chec$ that the contractor was co!petent and the wor$ was properly e(ecuted. The act su##ests that . had clearly e!ployed a specialist contractor. There ore" they have dischar#ed their duty under /ec 0 1421b2. 5ut is there any ailure o supervision on the part o the .. ) the answer is EB/ then . will be liable on the basis o 7oo%4a % $ Ba"o o& 6astin)s.

) >O then . would not be liable" but the )ndependent 6ontractor would be liable on the basis o 6ase!%ine $ Da4.

8o!enti >on Cit In5u ia#

/ection 0 152 o 1984 Act which provides that the de ence is available to the occupier" i the visitors willin# to ta$es the ris$. There is no liability or Jris$s willin#ly accepted as his by the visitorJ" an application o volenti non it in+uria. An occupier can also restrict or e(clude liability via a notice providin# warnin#s and conditions o entry" althou#h under the Dn air 6ontract Ter!s Act 1977 1D6TA2 this cannot e(clude liability or death or personal in+ury due to ne#li#ence where the pre!ises are occupied or the business purposes o the occupier. OLA 1984 !ay not be the sub+ect to provision o the Dn air 6ontract Ter!s Act 1977 1D6TA2 which applies to the tort o ne#li#ence and the duty o care owed under the OLA 1957N )n Ashdown v /a!uel Cillia!s K /ons Ltd 719579 the 6ourt o Appeal held that an occupier could e(clude liability by displayin# a notice disclai!in# as such" even i the clai!ant had not read the notice.

Discussion e)a %in) 8o!enti non &it in5u ia Oolenti non it in+uria is a de ence o li!ited application in tort law. A direct translation o the latin phrase volenti non it in+uria is" 'to one who volunteers" no har! is done. Chere the de ence o volenti applies it operates as a co!plete de ence absolvin# the .e endant o all liability. )t is o ten stated that the 6lai!ant consents to the the ris$ o har!" however" the de ence o volenti is !uch !ore li!ited in its application and should not be con used with the de ence o consent in relation to trespass. The de ence o volenti non it in+uria re&uires a reely entered and voluntary a#ree!ent by the 6lai!ant" in ull $nowled#e o the circu!stances" to absolve the .e endant o all le#al conse&uences o their actions. There is a considerable overlap with contributory ne#li#ence and since the introduction o the Law =e or! 16ontributory >e#li#ence2 Act 1945" the courts have been less willin# to !a$e a indin# o volenti pre errin# to apportion loss between the parties rather than ta$in# an all or nothin# approach. The re&uire!ents o the de ence are thusI 1. A voluntary 0. A#ree!ent 3. Gade in ull $nowled#e o the nature and e(tent o the ris$. OoluntaryI the a#ree!ent !ust be voluntary and reely entered or the de ence o volenti non it in+uria to succeed. ) the 6lai!ant is not in a position to e(ercise ree choice" the de ence will not succeed. This ele!ent is !ost co!!only seen in relation to e!ploy!ent relationships" rescuers and suicide. A#ree!entI the second re&uire!ent or the de ence o volenti non it in+uria is a#ree!ent. The a#ree!ent !ay be e(press or i!plied. An e(a!ple o an

e(press a#ree!ent would be where there e(ists a contractual ter! or notice. -owever" this would be sub+ect to the controls o s.0 o the Dn air 6ontract Ter!s Act 1977. An i!plied a#ree!ent !ay e(ist where the 6lai!ants action in the circu!stances de!onstrates a willin#ness to accept not only the physical ris$s but also the le#al ris$s. >ettleship v Ceston 719719 3 CL= 378 6ase su!!ary . Lord .ennin#I *<nowled#e o the ris$ o in+ury is not enou#h. >othin# will su ice short o an a#ree!ent to waive any clai! or ne#li#ence. The plainti !ust a#ree e(pressly or i!pliedly to waive any clai! or any in+ury that !ay be all hi! due to the lac$ o reasonable care by the de endantI or !ore accurately due to the ailure by the de endant to !easure up to the duty o care which the law re&uires o hi!,. /!ith v 6harles 5a$er K /ons 718919 A6 305 6ase su!!ary" Lord CatsonI *)n its application to &uestions between the e!ployer and the e!ployed" the !a(i! as now used #enerally i!ports that the wor$!an had either e(pressly or by i!plication a#reed to ta$e upon hi!sel the ris$s attendant upon the particular wor$ which he was en#a#ed to per or!" and ro! which he has su ered in+ury. The &uestion which has !ost re&uently to be considered is not whether he voluntarily and rashly e(posed hi!sel to in+ury" but whether he a#reed that" i in+ury should be all hi!" the ris$ was to be his and not his !asters. <nowled#eI the 6lai!ant !ust have $nowled#e o the ull nature and e(tent o the ris$ that they ranI Cooldrid#e v /u!ner K Anor 719?39 0 P5 43 6ase su!!ary. The test or this is sub+ective and not ob+ective and in the conte(t o an into(icated 6lai!ant" the &uestion is whether the 6lai!ant was so into(icated that he was incapable o appreciatin# the nature o the ris$. 7a nin) >otice# /ec. 1152 o the 1984 Act per!its an occupier to be e(cluded ro! his liability by #ivin# ade&uate warnin# o the dan#er to the trespasser" or by otherwise discoura#in# trespassers ro! incurrin# ris$. /ection 0 142 1a2 o the OLA 1957 provides that the warnin# by the occupier re#ardin# the dan#er !ust be su icient in order or hi! to escape liability. In [Ro!es $ >at'an] this is not enou#h unless the visitor can still be reasonably sa e. )t was held that the .e endant was not in breach o his duty o care" by virtue o /ec 01421a2 o the OLA 1957 and he was not there ore liable. QactI The :lainti s were the windows o two chi!ney sweeps who had been called by the .e endant occupier to service and clean a central heatin# boiler and who were overco!e by u!es whilst wor$in# in the boiler roo!. They had advised not to enter in the roo! when the boiler was ali#ht. 5ut had disre#arded this advice and a warnin# about the dan#ers o carbon !ono(ide. Chen a house holders calls in a specialist to deal with a de ective installation on his pre!ises" he can reasonably e(pect the specialist to #uard a#ainst the dan#er arisin# ro! the de ect. The house holder is not bound to watch over hi! to see that he co!es to no har!. -ere" the occupier is not liable because o the act o the contractor.

In [Rae $ Ba s Lt% [1//@] it was held that where dan#er is e(tre!e or unusual" it not enou#h or there to be a warnin#N a barrier or additional notice should be placed. In [Stap!es $ 7est Do set Dist ict Counci! [1//0] it was established that where a dan#er is obvious" there is no need or a warnin#. Cont ibuto " >e)!i)ent# ) the visitor is at the sa!e ti!e is careless o his own duty and the occupier breach his co!!on duty the da!a#e will be apportion. -owever" .s decision to i#nore the warnin# notice !ay be counted as contributory ne#li#ence so as to +usti y a reduction in the award o da!a#es by the 6ourt. The .e ence o contributory ne#li#ence under the Law =e or! 16ontributory >e#li#ence2 Act 1945 would not be o any use to . because the act states that 6.

EDc!usions o& Occupie s %ut"# Sec - ,1. p o$i%es t'at o& 1/0E Act# the duty owned by the occupier is the co!!on law duty o care in respect o all visitors on their pre!ises. An occupier e(clude or !odi y his liability to a visitor by e(press ter!s in a contract with his visitors or otherwise. Occupiers Liability Act provides that i the occupier brin#s the condition o notice to the visitors attention the occupier can escape the liability. Sec - ,-. p o$i%es t'at# the occupier !ust ta$e such care as is reasonable in all the circu!stances o the case to see i the visitor will be reasonably sa e in usin# the pre!ises or the purposes or which he is invited or per!itted by the occupier to be there. This !eans that the pre!ises !ust be in #ood or sa e $eep so as to ensure the visitors sa ety. In Fo!!e" $ Sutton LBC the -ouse o Lords held that i da!a#e is oreseeable" then there is the liability" even i the way in which it is caused is not oreseeable. Surely, on this basis, X ought to be responsible or liable for Ys injury

[O8ERALL DISCUSSIO> OC T6E OCCUPIERS ACT]

Occupiers liability is a part o tort law that say the occupier o property is responsible" to so!e e(tent or the sa ety o those people who visit or trespass. Accordin# to occupierHs liability" which was irst reco#niLed in Bn#land by the 1957 OccupiersH Liability Act" the occupier o property has a duty o care to the a oresaid people 1who !ay visit or trespass2. The le#al de inition o the ter! occupier varies dependin# on the property and how it is bein# usedI leasers" renters" licensees"

owners" and even independent contractors can all be considered occupiers. Cithin reason" the occupier had a duty to !a$e certain that the property is sa e or anyone who enters. There ore" any personal in+ury su ered as the result o unreasonably unsa e conditions on the property !ay be cause or ne#li#ence" !eanin# the in+ured could sue the occupier or da!a#es. Qor e(a!ple" i a ho!e has a !a+or but obscure hole in its outdoor stairs and a sales!an slips and alls" the owner could be held liable or his in+ury" because the pre!ises were seriously unsa e and there was no si#n alertin# visitors o the unsa e conditions. .ependin# on the +urisdiction" da!a#es !ay or !ay not be #ranted to trespassers. :re!ises liability law !ay hold owners and occupiers o land le#ally responsible or in+uries sustained on their property. )n !ost states" the relationship between the entrant and the land possessor deter!ines a de endants liability. There are #enerally three types o entrants" which include invitees" licensees" and trespassers. )n your case" you were a licensee. A licensee is a person who enters the property with the owners consent or social purposes rather than or business purposes. 5ecause a licensee is an invited #uest" the property owner owes a duty to warn the licensee o any $nown dan#erous conditions on the property and !ust e(ercise reasonable care to protect the licensee. A land possessor has no duty to inspect the pre!ises or de ects nor is there a duty to repair de ects. ) your riend was aware o the loose bric$" she had a duty to warn you o the condition on the property. 5ecause you su ered an in+ury ro! the unsa e condition o the property" your riend !ay be liable or your !edical costs. The liability o an occupier o land or pre!ises to persons on the land or the condition o the pre!ises and thin#s done there. The occupier or this purpose is the person or persons e(ercisin# control over the pre!ises. At co!!on law the e(tent o an occupierHs liability varied accordin# to whether the person on the land entered under a contract" as an invitee" as a " or as a trespasser. The co!!on law rules have been replaced by statutes. The Bn#lish statutes distin#uish between visitors and other persons on land. The OccupiersH Liability Act 1957 i!poses on an occupier a co!!on duty o care to all his visitors 1i.e. those who enter by his invitation or with his per!ission2 to see that they will be reasonably sa e in usin# the pre!ises or the purpose or which they were invited or per!itted to be there. Dnder the OccupiersH Liability Act 1984" an occupier only owes a duty to persons other than visitors 1i.e. trespassers and persons who enter law ully but without the occupierHs per!ission2 i the occupier is aware or has reasonable #rounds to $now o a dan#er on the pre!ises and that a person !ay be in the vicinity o the dan#er and the ris$ is one a#ainst which he !ay reasonably be e(pected to o er so!e protection. The duty" i any" is con ined to ta$in# such care as is reasonable in all the circu!stances to see that the dan#er does not cause death or personal in+ury to the person concerned. The duty !ay be dischar#ed by ta$in# such steps as are reasonable to #ive warnin# o the dan#er or to discoura#e persons ro! incurrin# the ris$.

[BET6OD OC 7RITI>? I> T6E EGABI>ATIO>]

Althou#h touchin# on the area o ne#li#ence" this &uestion is pri!arily concerned with the principles o Occupiers Liability. Occupiers Liability is a specialiLed aspect o co!!on law ne#li#ent.

Occupiers Liability is wholly #overned by statute i.e. the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 which concerns the liability o an occupier o pre!ises to his or her visitors and on the other hand" the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 which concerns an occupiers liability to trespassers. 5e ore considerin# the position o A and 5 in relation to da!a#e so!e co!!on issues need to ind out. Qirst o all" does R &uali y as an occupierF )n Cheat v B Lacon K 6o. Li!ited where SSSSS. /econdly" the issue o pre!ises !ust be addressed which is covered by /ec 11321a2 OLA 1957 SSSSSSSS" Cheeler v 6opas where SSSSSSS and inally" the issue o whether A and 5 were law ul visitors need to be analyLed" visitors includes invitees and licensees. This is stated by /ec 1102 OLA 1957SSSSS. )n the present act the dan#er is thatSSSSSSSSSSSS. 6learly the !ain issue whether 6 can sue . or co!pensation or breach o the Occupiers statutory duty o care owed to trespasser. There is no proble! or R to established as a visitors because he is the SSS o SS. -e is clearly a visitor and the e!ployer. The SSSwill also be responsible on the basis o the principles o e!ployers liability. This !ay raise the issue o i!plied per!ission to enter into the pre!isesT. -owever" it !ust be born in !ind that the occupier !ay li!it the per!ission i.e. 12 he #ives per!ission to the visitors to enter as re#ards space 1The 6al#arth2" 02 the purpose o the visitors visits 1= v /!ith and 4ones2 and 32 as re#ards the ti!e o the visit 1/tone v Ta e2. )t would appear that there was an i!plied per!ission as R was not prevented ro! enterin# into the place. 6learly" E had the authority to prevent hi! but did not. Dpon scrutiniLin# the above !entioned act" it !ay consider that R was as a law ul visitor. There is no proble! with establishin# who the occupier is ro! the acts o the &uestion as we in or!ed that SSSS occupy the actory pre!ises. There ore" on the basis o Cheat v B Lacon K 6o. Li!ited SSSS !ay be entitled as an Occupier. The >otice clearly prohibits visitors ro! enterin# the place. The issue o whether the notice erected at the entrance su iciently warned visitors o any ris$ or dan#er !ust be deter!ined. /ince no e ective security was ta$en to prevent trespasser. The possibility is that the trespasser !i#ht i#nore the notice. -ence" it is ar#uable" that .s #eneral warnin# notice on the #ate !ay be su icient to e(e!pt hi! ro! liability" althou#h the court will have re#ard to all the circu!stances o the cases.

18

The warnin# !ay be seen as inade&uate to e(e!pt . ro! his liability. -ence" R would be a visitor or the purpose o the Occupiers Liability Act 1OLA2 1957 and E would be a trespasser or the purpose o the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. )n view o above discussions and upon scrutiniLin# the acts and laws 6 would be advised to pursue an action a#ainst the . andMor )ndependent 6ontractor or ne#li#ence.

[STRUCTURE]
1. 0. 3. 4. 5. ?. 7. :rea!ble .e inition o Occupier .e inition o :re!ises. .e inition o OisitorsMTrespasser. liability .e ences OpinionI