Occupiers Liability Claims
If you are a lawful visitor to land or premises occupied by another person or another company, then that occupier has a legal duty to ensure that they take reasonable steps to prevent accidents.
The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (“the Act”) covers anyone who is a customer or a potential customer visiting shops, offices, pubs, doctors’ surgeries or anywhere else where members of the public would lawfully have access.
The Act requires that occupiers of such premises will be liable to compensate members of the public for personal injury and damage to property that they suffer as a result of an accident on the premises. This legal duty also extends to those who are considered to be ‘in control’ of the premises. This means that parties who are not occupiers such as landlords of premises which have been leased might still be liable to ensure that a property is safe.
The legislation refers to occupiers and those who are in control of premises being liable for any injury or damage to property caused to members of the public as a result of ‘dangers due to the state of the property or [because of] things done or omitted to be done there’.
In other words, anyone who is responsible under the Act would be liable for injuries or damage to property caused by:
- defects in the physical property – such as a pothole in the car park; or
- the activities carried out there – for example if a customer in a DIY store was run over by a forklift truck.
It should be noted, however, that the duty under the Act only requires occupiers and those in control of premises to take reasonable care to ensure that lawful visitors are reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited there.
Therefore, once an occupier and those in control of premises have established that they have a reasonable system for preventing accidents then they will not be liable in respect of any claim.
The classic example of this is a spillage in a supermarket. If a supermarket customer slipped on something spilt in one of the aisles and sustained an injury then they would potentially have a claim for compensation under the Act.
However, most supermarkets have a system in place for checking the aisles periodically and clearing any spillages. If a court thought that the system in place was reasonable then the supermarket would not be liable provided that the supermarket had followed its own guidelines but also provided that the spillage had not been pointed out to supermarket staff by other customers.
The Act only covers the intended use of premises where the accident occurred. If someone rode a bicycle through a supermarket and fell off, injuring themselves, then the supermarket would probably not be liable because riding a bicycle would not be the intended use for which the public were invited into the supermarket.
The law also indicates that a warning notice advising a visitor of a hazard is not always enough to prevent the occupier from being liable for an accident.
A warning about a slippery floor may not necessarily be enough to prevent an occupier from being liable for a fall caused by that slippery floor if a visitor had to cross that area to reach another part of the premises. A court might find that the occupier should have closed off the slippery floor entirely until the problem was rectified.
Alternatively, a warning notice on a rowing machine in a gym advising that the machine was broken and should therefore not be used would probably be considered by a court to be sufficient to prevent the occupier from being liable for an accident, if a gym member chose to ignore the warning and use the rowing machine anyway.
The legislation also provides that occupiers are to take special care when considering the risks of accidents to children as they should be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. Occupiers are, however, entitled to expect that qualified persons would protect themselves against risks relating to their profession. For example a householder would not be expected to take special precautions to ensure that an electrician did not electrocute himself.
As well as providing protection for lawful visitors to premises the law also provides protection for those who enter premises unlawfully, i.e. trespassers, under the terms of The Occupiers Liability Act 1984.
Under the 1984 Act occupiers or people in control of premises can only be held liable for personal injury or death to trespassers and not for damage to personal property of a trespasser. The occupier owes a duty to trespassers when they are aware of a danger to trespassers or have reasonable grounds to believe that such a danger exists.
An occupier also has to know or have reasonable grounds to believe that a trespasser may attempt to go into their premises and be near the danger or risk that exists.
Regrettably, a situation that often arises involving trespassers is where children trespass onto railways. There is generally a duty on the occupier of the railway line and surrounding land to take sufficient steps to protect trespassers on the railway. This would usually take the form of secure fencing and warning notices, particularly in areas where trespassing on the railway is a problem.
It should be noted that The Occupiers Liability Act 1984 does not, however, cover users of the public highway. Therefore, accidents that occur on public roads would not be covered by this legislation but it is very likely that other legal provision would apply to such accidents.
For further guidance and advice on this particularly complex area of the law contact Oliver & Co.’s team of experts in personal injury claims arising out of occupiers liability.
For more information about making a claim for compensation on a ‘no win no fee’ basis, as a result of slipping or tripping, please complete our enquiry form or call us on 01244 354644.
