Nobody downloaded yet

Changes Brought by Occupiers Liability Act to the Common Law - Essay Example

Comments (0) Cite this document
Occupiers Liability law refers to the liabilities that are owed to the visitors and trespassers of a premise or related property. This law imposes a duty of care on the owner of a property to the person who goes to the premise. …
Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER98.9% of users find it useful
Changes Brought by Occupiers Liability Act to the Common Law
Read TextPreview

Extract of sample "Changes Brought by Occupiers Liability Act to the Common Law"

Download file to see previous pages The common law of negligence initially applied in cases relating to those who suffered damages while in one’s premise. However, this was to the extent that the claimant proved that a duty of care was owed to him or her under the common law of negligence. However, the common law of negligence had inconsistencies owing to differences in court rulings under the similar set of facts. It also proved less relaxed in holding the owners of premises liable, often for lack of duty of care, more so to visitors and trespassers. These formed the foundation of a legislative intervention The Occupiers liability Acts being enacted. As of now, the law concerning such liability in the United Kingdoms is mostly found in the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (regarding visitors) while that regarding the non-visitors is largely found Occupiers Liability Act 1984. In as much as the law to a large extent codified common law, the cases have to be relied upon in determining the meaning of “occupier” and the line between a “visitor” and a “trespasser” or a non visitor. According to the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 the occupier only owes a duty of care to the lawful visitors. This duty is similarly owed to the lawfully visitors either to or to on the premise. It is worth noting that the occupiers rather than the owners of the premise retain the liability to compensate the victims injured on the premises as a result of their dangerous state. Sufficient or effective degree of control is used to determine the occupation of the premise. For that reason, one must not necessarily need to be the actual owner of a premise for him or her to be considered the occupier. He may owe the duty if he exercises a substantial extent of control in which case he owes this duty to all lawful visitors with the only exceptions specified in the agreement. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 does not imposes this duty of care on the occupier towards the visitors of the premises; rather it is towards the non visitors, essentially understood as a trespasser. A trespasser for that matter is anybody who goes into the land in another person’s possession intentionally without obtaining a lawful authorization. Taking an example of a theatre, any member of the public who happens to be admitted there is a visitor and the occupier of the theatre owes them a duty of care. The theatre ticket they are issued with serves a license which bears with it an agreement not to be revoked till the end of the performance. As such this is a sufficient authorization (Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd (1915) 1 KB 1 CA). The extent of liability was traditionally based on whether or not one was a visitor. The question asked then is, who is a visitor? Generally speaking, at common law it was important to know the difference between licensees, invitees and the premise ...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
(“Changes Brought by Occupiers Liability Act to the Common Law Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from
(Changes Brought by Occupiers Liability Act to the Common Law Essay)
“Changes Brought by Occupiers Liability Act to the Common Law Essay”, n.d.
  • Cited: 0 times
Comments (0)
Click to create a comment or rate a document

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Changes Brought by Occupiers Liability Act to the Common Law

Common Law Lloyd v. Grace Smith & Co.28 wherein the solicitor was held for deceit by his managing clerk (Markesinis et al 2007). The courts used the test of sufficient consideration in respect of the liability of the employer for sexual assault torts by an employee. It is important to mention that both, the employer and the employee are held as join tortfeasors. 3-b Occupiers liability: The Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 and 1984 are different in application as the former applies to lawful visitors, while the latter applies to trespassers and those not covered under the former Act. In respect of the 1957...
15 Pages(3750 words)Essay

Common law

...requires an analysis of Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and 1984. Each of these will be discussed in turned and the duty that is applied by the courts would be discussed. Both the Acts have not defined what the meaning of an occupier is, the decisive criteria for determining the occupier is the element which is called the control of the premises. The court in Wheat v Lacon15 made a detailed discussion of who an occupier is. The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 is an Act which tends to focus on lawful visitors who have been described in s.1(2)...
15 Pages(3750 words)Essay

Common law

...should be dedicated to the creation of shareholder wealth. Further, it is the concern of Stahl and Mendenhall (2005) that strategic and financial goals are too often emphasised in business, whilst the psychological, cultural and human resource implications are not fully recognized. A company that recognises and includes its employees in the decision-making process will enjoy increasing success in the long run. It is the long-term goals that matter the most. Strategy of Managing Culture Organisational development (OD) is a planned organisation-wide approach to improving effectiveness, utilising humanistic values and beliefs about the potential to grow and a willingness to make changes. Work was once considered a...
3 Pages(750 words)Case Study

The Law on Occupiers Liability

...The Law on Occupier's Liability The law on occupier's liability s that an occupier is basically considered as a person who is under control overthe premises such as buildings, open land among others. whereby, he is given the responsibility of ensuring that the premises are safe for their purposes and in common law such responsibilities are referred to as a duty of care which is usually defined as follows, if one man is near another or is near to a property then he carries the duty of not doing an act which may cause a personal injury to that other or an action that may...
18 Pages(4500 words)Essay

Liability of Employers and Occupiers

...." Ashraf as an exclusive member of the exercise club knew a side entrance that could be used as alternative route but he was in a hurry so he risked the corridor and was thus culpable of contributory negligence. The tort law, according to Hocking & Smith (1996), is all about dissecting all possibilities in a case to make common sense values prevail, and common sense tells us that Sports Ltd. through its cleaning woman Maria took "reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that would likely injure (its) neighbors," as gleaned from Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990). Case 3 - Maria Under the beach of duty of care principle, there is a tort...
4 Pages(1000 words)Case Study

Criminal Law Liability

...negligence3 Duty is imposed by common law statute. A breach is the failure to do something or doing something incorrectly according to the standard expected. The causal link is the fact that death has resulted from this failure with no intervening cause while gross negligence is the fact that the standard of performance or non-performance is so bad as to make it criminal. A "reasonable person" standard can apply when there is no actual contractual arrangement. Thus if a 'reasonable person" would have acted in a manner that would have prevented or avoided the resulting damage/injury then the defendant may be found liable. For example, in R. v. Miller4 (1982) a defendant was held liable...
12 Pages(3000 words)Essay

(business law) occupiers, liability ACT

...of Stevenson v Glasgow Corporation*3 where Lord M’Laren explained that “precautions which have been rejected by common sense as unnecessary and inconvenient are not required by law.” This position was recently cited by Lord Hutton in the case of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council*4 where the defendants were not held liable for Tomlison’s injuries, because the injury had come about due to Tomlinson’s choice to undertake a dangerous activity rather than because the premises were dangerous. In the case of Robert Addie and Sons v Dumbreck*5 Lord Hailsham limited the liability of occupiers, especially towards trespassers, when he stated that an occupier...
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay

Common Law

...transformation of contemporary living, which has brought with it an increased risk of fatality. As such, the law of tort has been continually redefined to address this risk. In reviewing the tort of negligence, it is important at the outset to consider the theoretical justification for fault based liability in tort. Indeed, Hassan El Menyawi propounds that such an evaluation is essential to a meaningful comparison of the arguments for and against a no fault scheme in the tort of negligence (El Menyawi, 2002). El Menyawi argues that “moral values” underpin the current fault based liability for negligence in the framework of a system of “corrective justice”. The...
8 Pages(2000 words)Essay

Common Law

..., the acceptance is made at the time of posting itself. 12 Now, considering the instant case applying the above principles, there is no doubt that contract has been formed especially because the performance of the contract has been partly carried out and accepted by the buyer. If it had not been performed and the buyer or seller had objected to the terms and conditions of the other party, it would remain a counter offer. This is strictly the position in common law, though in the Vienna Convention dealing with international sale of goods, it has been provided that these need not necessarily result in a no-contract situation unless there is material discrepancy arising out of what is called the ‘battle of...
8 Pages(2000 words)Essay

Common law put on a leash. Another may pray for an injunction from the court to stop nuisance being caused to him by the constant din of a workshop in a residential area. Concepts of torts have evolved over time. But it is in the area of negligence as tort that the courts have given a whole new dimension to the liability of persons from whom duty is owed to the person injured, whether statutory or arising out of common law. Tort of negligence can be defined as liability for a failure to take proper care to avoid inflicting foreseeable injury. In the historical times only acts constituted torts. Most torts are wrongful acts. But the courts...
8 Pages(2000 words)Essay
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.

Let us find you another Essay on topic Changes Brought by Occupiers Liability Act to the Common Law for FREE!

Contact Us