Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984: The Difference
Compare the 1957 and 1984 Occupiers’ Liability Acts: who each protects, when a duty arises, what it covers and how to choose the right Act in an exam.
The key difference is who is protected. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 applies to lawful visitors: people who have permission to be on the premises. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 can protect non-visitors, including trespassers, but only when specific conditions are met. An occupier is someone with sufficient control over premises to take steps to keep people safe.
The 1957 Act
An occupier owes lawful visitors a common duty of care. They must take reasonable care to ensure that visitors are reasonably safe while using the premises for the purpose for which they were invited or permitted to be there. This is not a guarantee that no accident will happen. The Act can cover personal injury and damage to property.
The 1984 Act
A non-visitor is not owed the same automatic duty. Under the 1984 Act, a duty arises only if the occupier knows about the danger (or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists), knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the person may come near it, and the risk is one against which they may reasonably be expected to offer protection. If those conditions are met, the occupier must take reasonable care to prevent injury caused by the danger. The 1984 Act does not cover damage to the non-visitor’s property.
Example and exam tip
A customer walking through a shop is a lawful visitor, so the 1957 Act applies to a hazard on the shop floor. If that customer enters a clearly restricted storeroom without permission, they may become a non-visitor in that area. The 1984 Act may then apply, but its conditions must be checked.
In an exam, do not assume someone remains a lawful visitor everywhere on the premises. Identify where they were and whether they had permission to be there before choosing the Act.
