Occupiers' liability — common mistakes

In problem questions, first identify the parties (claimant and defendant), then establish if the defendant is an 'occupier' and the claimant is a 'visitor' or 'non-visitor'. This determines which Act applies. For OLA 1957, always state the common duty of care from s.2(2) and then consider if it has been modified (children/experts) or discharged (warnings/contractors) before concluding on breach.

No. The occupier is not expected to guarantee a visitor's safety. The duty under OLA 1957 is to take reasonable care. If the occupier has taken reasonable steps to ensure the visitor is safe, they will not be liable, even if an accident occurs. The standard is one of reasonableness, not perfection. For example, in Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme, mopping a wet floor was considered a reasonable step, and the occupier was not liable when a customer slipped.

Yes. A person with permission to be on the premises can become a trespasser if they exceed that permission. This can happen by going into an area where they are not permitted (e.g., a 'staff only' room) or by staying on the premises after their permission has expired. This was seen in The Calgarth, where it was stated, "When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters." Once they become a trespasser, any duty owed to them falls under OLA 1984, not OLA 1957.

Not necessarily. Under OLA 1957, a warning is only effective if it is sufficient to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe (s.2(4)(a)). A simple 'Beware' sign may be insufficient if the danger is unusual or not obvious. Under OLA 1984, a warning can be an effective way to discharge the duty to a trespasser, but it must be clear and positioned to draw attention to the specific danger (e.g., 'Danger - Deep Water' is better than 'No Swimming'). The effectiveness of a warning is always a question of fact in each case.