What duties does an occupier owe to lawful visitors and to trespassers, and when is the occupier liable for injury on the premises?
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, including the special rules for children and defences.
Occupiers' liability for WJEC A-Level Law Unit 2. Covers the duty to lawful visitors under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, the special rules for children and skilled visitors, the duty to trespassers under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, and the available defences, with cases.
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
This dot point covers occupiers' liability, the liability of a person in control of premises for injuries suffered there. It is governed by two statutes: the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (duty to lawful visitors) and the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (duty to trespassers). You need to identify the occupier and the type of entrant, state the relevant duty, apply the special rules (children, skilled visitors), and consider the defences. WJEC tests application to scenarios involving both visitors and trespassers.
The answer
Who is the occupier and the entrant
The duty to lawful visitors (1957 Act)
Under section 2(2) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 the occupier owes the common duty of care: to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which they are permitted to be there.
The occupier can discharge the duty by:
- Warning (section 2(4)(a)): an adequate warning that makes the visitor reasonably safe (a warning must be effective, not merely present).
- Independent contractors (section 2(4)(b)): the occupier is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor if it was reasonable to entrust the work, the contractor was competent, and the work was checked where possible (Haseldine v Daw, lift repair properly entrusted).
The duty to trespassers (1984 Act)
Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, a duty to a trespasser arises only if the section 1(3) conditions are satisfied: the occupier is aware of the danger (or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists); knows or ought to know a trespasser may come into its vicinity; and the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances, it is reasonable to offer some protection. If so, the duty (section 1(4)) is to take such care as is reasonable to see the trespasser is not injured by the danger. Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council shows the limits: an adult who dived into a shallow lake despite warnings was owed no duty, because the risk arose from his own action, not the state of the premises.
Examples in context
The two Acts handle children and adults very differently. Under the 1957 Act, Glasgow Corporation v Taylor shows that an occupier must expect children to be drawn to allurements and to be less careful, so attractive but dangerous features impose a higher standard where children are likely. Under the 1984 Act, Tomlinson v Congleton shows the opposite for risk-taking adults: a man who ignored prohibition notices and dived into a lake was owed no duty, because the danger came from his own decision rather than the state of the premises, and imposing liability would have forced the closure of public amenities. Between them, the cases let you advise on very different claimants on the same set of premises.
Try this
Q1. Which Act governs the duty owed to a trespasser? [1 mark]
- Cue. The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.
Q2. State the common duty of care under section 2(2) of the 1957 Act. [2 marks]
- Cue. To take such care as is reasonable to see the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose of the visit.
Q3. Advise whether an occupier is liable to an injured visitor and to an injured trespasser. [20 marks]
- What the marker wants. The occupier and entrants identified, the 1957 Act applied to the visitor (s2(2), special rules, discharge), the 1984 Act s1(3) conditions applied to the trespasser, and separate conclusions.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of WJEC exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
WJEC 201820 marksAdvise whether an occupier is liable for injuries suffered by a visitor and by a trespasser on the premises.Show worked answer →
A scenario question requiring the two Acts to be applied to the two types of entrant.
For the lawful visitor, apply the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. Identify the occupier (the person with control, Wheat v Lacon) and the visitor. The occupier owes the common duty of care to keep the visitor reasonably safe for the purpose of the visit (s2(2)). Note the special rules: an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful (s2(3)(a), Glasgow Corporation v Taylor on allurements), but can expect a skilled visitor to guard against risks of their trade (s2(3)(b), Roles v Nathan). Liability may be avoided by warning (s2(4)(a), Rae v Mars) or by using a competent independent contractor (s2(4)(b), Haseldine v Daw).
For the trespasser, apply the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. A duty arises only if the occupier knows of the danger, knows or should know the trespasser may come into its vicinity, and the risk is one against which it is reasonable to offer protection (s1(3)). The duty is to take reasonable care that the trespasser is not injured by the danger (Tomlinson v Congleton shows the limits).
Conclude separately for each entrant.
WJEC 202012 marksExplain the duty owed by an occupier to lawful visitors.Show worked answer →
An AO1 task rewarding accurate explanation of the 1957 Act.
Identify the occupier as the person in control of the premises (Wheat v Lacon) and the lawful visitor as someone with permission (invitees, licensees, those entering under a contract or by legal right).
State the common duty of care under s2(2): to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which they are permitted to be there.
Explain the special rules: occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful and guard against allurements (s2(3)(a), Glasgow Corporation v Taylor), but may expect skilled visitors to appreciate risks of their trade (s2(3)(b), Roles v Nathan).
Note the ways of discharging the duty: adequate warning (s2(4)(a)) and the proper use of an independent contractor (s2(4)(b), Haseldine v Daw).
Related dot points
- Negligence: establishing a duty of care, breach of that duty by falling below the standard of the reasonable person, and damage that is factually caused and not too remote.
Negligence for WJEC A-Level Law Unit 2. Covers the three elements of duty of care (Caparo), breach of duty by the reasonable person standard with risk factors, and damage through factual causation (but for) and legal causation (remoteness), with leading cases.
- Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher: liability in private nuisance for unlawful interference with the use and enjoyment of land, the relevant factors and defences, and strict liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher for WJEC A-Level Law Unit 2. Covers private nuisance as unlawful interference with the use and enjoyment of land, the factors of reasonableness, the defences including prescription and statutory authority, and the strict liability rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
- Vicarious liability: the requirements that there is a relationship akin to employment and that the tort was committed in the course of employment, including the close connection test and frolics of one's own.
Vicarious liability for WJEC A-Level Law Unit 2. Covers the requirement of an employment or akin relationship, the distinction between employees and independent contractors, the course of employment and the close connection test, frolics of one's own, and the justifications for the doctrine.
- Defences in tort: contributory negligence as a partial defence, consent (volenti non fit injuria) and illegality as complete defences, and necessity, including their requirements and effect.
Defences in tort for WJEC A-Level Law Unit 2. Covers contributory negligence as a partial defence reducing damages, the complete defences of consent (volenti) and illegality, and necessity, with their requirements, effect and leading cases.
- Remedies in tort: compensatory damages (general and special, the aim of restoring the claimant), the principle of mitigation, lump sum and structured settlements, and injunctions.
Remedies in tort for WJEC A-Level Law Unit 2. Covers compensatory damages and the aim of restoring the claimant, the distinction between general and special damages, pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss, mitigation, lump sums and structured settlements, and injunctions.
Sources & how we know this
- WJEC GCE AS/A Level Law specification (from 2017) — WJEC (2017)