Occupier Essay

1700 Words4 Pages

A discussion will be carried out to determine which claims Ursula, Daniel and John may be able to make in tort. The rules relating to occupiers’ liability and vicarious liability will require particular focus. To establish the likelihood on an efficacious claim, the relevant rules will be discussed and applied to each individual separately. Occupiers’ liability refers to the duty of care owed by occupiers to individuals who visit or trespass. Occupiers have a responsibility to ensure that the state of their premises is not dangerous to others, two key pieces of legislation govern this obligation. Firstly, the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) which concerns the duty owed to lawful visitors. Secondly, the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (OLA 1984) which governs the extent to which an occupier can be held liable for injuries suffered by unlawful visitors (trespassers). In relation to Ursula’s prospective claims, it must initially be established whether Tom Hopkins is considered to be the occupier. Whilst the word ‘occupier’ lacks a coherent legislative definition, it was established in Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552 that an occupier refers to those with such control over the premises that a duty of care is owed towards those who enter it. As the owner of the …show more content…

That is, provided that Café Tourmalet acted reasonably in entrusting the work to Perry & Sons and had taken such steps as they reasonably ought to in order to satisfy themselves of their competence and that the work carried out had been done so properly. There is nothing in the facts to suggest that Café Tourmalet had not taken such steps and therefore would be successful in excluding their liability as the handrail was removed as a result of the contractors work. Consequently, Daniel has no claim against Café Tourmalet under OLA

More about Occupier Essay

Open Document