What duty does an occupier of premises owe to people who come onto their land?
Occupiers' liability: the duty owed to lawful visitors under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and the duty owed to trespassers under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.
A focused answer to the AQA A-Level Law occupiers' liability topic, covering the duty owed to lawful visitors under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and the more limited duty owed to trespassers under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
AQA wants you to explain who is an occupier, the duty owed to lawful visitors under the 1957 Act, the more limited duty owed to trespassers under the 1984 Act, and how each duty can be discharged. It is a regular problem-question topic.
Liability to lawful visitors (1957 Act)
The Act adjusts the duty in three situations:
- Children: an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful and must guard against allurements (Glasgow Corporation v Taylor, Phipps v Rochester Corporation on very young children).
- Skilled visitors: a tradesperson is expected to guard against risks ordinarily incidental to their trade (Roles v Nathan, the chimney sweeps).
- Independent contractors: an occupier is not liable for the negligent work of a contractor if it was reasonable to entrust the work, a competent contractor was chosen, and the work was checked where possible (section 2(4)(b), Haseldine v Daw, Woodward v Mayor of Hastings).
Liability to trespassers (1984 Act)
Discharging the duty and defences
An occupier can discharge the duty by giving a warning that is enough to keep the visitor reasonably safe (section 2(4)(a)), or by warning notices for trespassers (Ratcliff v McConnell). General defences apply: consent (volenti, section 2(5); Ratcliff v McConnell), contributory negligence (reducing damages), and the effect of exclusion notices subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The boundary between the two Acts repays close attention. A lawful visitor who exceeds the permission given can become a trespasser for that purpose, falling under the 1984 Act: as Scrutton LJ put it, a person invited to use the stairs is not invited to slide down the banisters. The duty owed to trespassers is deliberately lower than that owed to visitors, reflecting the policy that an occupier should not have to make premises safe for those who have no right to be there, but it still protects, in particular, child trespassers drawn in by an allurement. The leading limit is Tomlinson v Congleton BC, where an adult who dived into a shallow lake despite prohibition signs could not recover, because the danger was obvious and arose from his own activity rather than the state of the premises. The contrast with the higher, more protective duty to lawful visitors (and the special allowance for children under the 1957 Act, Glasgow Corporation v Taylor) is exactly what a problem question tests, so always fix the claimant's status before choosing the Act.
How occupiers' liability is examined
Occupiers' liability is a frequent problem-question topic. Examiners reward correctly classifying the claimant, choosing the right Act, applying the duty (including the children and skilled-visitor adjustments), and reaching a conclusion that reflects the lower duty owed to trespassers.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of AQA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
AQA 202110 marksPriya, aged seven, climbs over a low fence at a building site to reach an unguarded pile of bright sand and is injured when it collapses. Discuss the occupier's liability to Priya. [10 marks]Show worked answer →
First decide Priya's status. By climbing the fence she is a trespasser, so the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 applies. A duty arises only if the three section 1(3) conditions are met: the occupier is aware of the danger, knows or has reasonable grounds to believe a trespasser may come into its vicinity, and the risk is one against which protection may reasonably be expected.
Because Priya is a young child and the bright sand may be an allurement, the occupier may well be aware children could trespass, so a duty under section 1(4) to take reasonable care to prevent injury is likely. Contrast Tomlinson v Congleton on obvious dangers to adults. Markers reward correctly classifying Priya as a trespasser, applying the section 1(3) conditions, and a conclusion that takes account of her age.
AQA 20184 marksExplain how an occupier can discharge the common duty of care owed to lawful visitors under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. [4 marks]Show worked answer →
Under section 2(2) the occupier must take such care as is reasonable to see the visitor is reasonably safe for the purpose of the visit. The duty can be discharged by giving a warning that is in all the circumstances enough to keep the visitor reasonably safe (section 2(4)(a)). The occupier may also avoid liability for the work of an independent contractor under section 2(4)(b) where it was reasonable to entrust the work, a competent contractor was chosen and the work was checked where possible (Haseldine v Daw). Markers reward the adequate-warning point and the independent-contractor route with authority.
Related dot points
- Negligence: the duty of care and the Caparo test, breach of duty and the standard of care, causation and remoteness of damage, and the rules on pure economic loss and psychiatric injury.
A focused answer to the AQA A-Level Law negligence topic, covering the duty of care and the Caparo test, breach and the standard of the reasonable person, factual and legal causation, remoteness, and the special rules on psychiatric injury and pure economic loss.
- Rules and theory of tort: the nature and purpose of tort law, the relationship between tort and fault, the aims of compensation and deterrence, and policy considerations.
A focused answer to the AQA A-Level Law rules and theory of tort topic, covering the nature and purpose of tort law, the relationship between tort and fault, the aims of compensation and deterrence, and policy considerations such as the floodgates argument.
- Private nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher: the elements of private nuisance, relevant factors, the strict liability rule in Rylands v Fletcher, and the available defences.
A focused answer to the AQA A-Level Law nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher topic, covering the elements and factors of private nuisance, the strict liability rule in Rylands v Fletcher and its requirements, and the defences available to each.
- Vicarious liability: the requirement of a relationship of employment or one akin to it, the requirement that the tort be committed in the course of employment, and the justifications for the doctrine.
A focused answer to the AQA A-Level Law vicarious liability topic, covering the relationship of employment or one akin to it, the requirement that the tort be in the course of employment, the close connection test, and the justifications for the doctrine.
- Defences and remedies in tort: the defences of contributory negligence and consent (volenti non fit injuria), and the remedies of compensatory damages and injunctions.
A focused answer to the AQA A-Level Law defences and remedies in tort topic, covering the defences of contributory negligence and consent (volenti non fit injuria) and the remedies of compensatory damages and injunctions.
Sources & how we know this
- AQA A-level Law (7162) specification — AQA (2017)