Occupiers’ Liability: Visitors vs Trespassers
Compare occupiers’ liability to visitors and trespassers for A Level Law: the 1957 and 1984 Acts, when each duty applies, and a clear example of the difference.
Occupiers’ liability is the duty owed by someone who controls premises to people who enter them. Visitors are generally protected by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957; trespassers may have more limited protection under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. An occupier is a person with sufficient control over the premises, not necessarily the owner.
Visitors
A visitor has permission to be on the premises, whether expressly given or implied by the circumstances. Under the 1957 Act, the occupier owes a common duty of care: to take reasonable care to see that visitors are reasonably safe when 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.
Trespassers
A trespasser enters without permission, or goes beyond the scope of their permission. The 1984 Act can impose a duty where the occupier knows about the danger (or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists), knows or has reasonable grounds to believe a person may come near it, and can reasonably be expected to offer some protection. If those conditions are met, the occupier must take reasonable care to prevent injury from the danger. Unlike the 1957 Act, the 1984 Act does not cover damage to a trespasser’s property.
Example
Suppose a shop has a dangerous hole in its floor. A customer entering during opening hours is a visitor, so the 1957 Act applies. Someone entering after closing without permission is a trespasser. The 1984 Act may apply if the shop occupier knows about the hole and has reason to believe people might enter and encounter it. In either case, whether the occupier breached their duty depends on what precautions were reasonable.
Exam mistake: do not say trespassers are owed no duty, or that an occupier is automatically liable whenever someone is injured.