Occupiers' liability — practice questions

Occupier: Builder controlling site = occupier (Wheat v Lacon — control test).

Status: Child entered without permission = trespasser (not visitor). Apply Occupiers' Liability Act 1984:

1. Danger: Uncovered trench — danger on premises.
2. Occupier knows of danger: Builder aware of trench — satisfied.
3. Knows/reasonably expects trespasser may enter: Builder knew children sometimes entered — satisfied (British Railways Board v Herrington — child trespassers foreseeable).
4. Risk reasonable to offer some protection: All s1(3) conditions met → duty arises under s1(4) — care reasonable in circumstances.

Standard: Lower than 1957 but child trespassers attract higher care — s2(3)(a) OLA 1957 factors analogous by policy (Phipps v Rochester — children less careful).

Defences: No volenti for child; contributory negligence unlikely given age.

Contrast visitor: If child were invited (delivery), OLA 1957 s2(2) common duty — likely breach for failing to fence trench given known child entry.

Conclusion: Builder likely liable under OLA 1984 — should have fenced or covered trench.

1. Identify Parties and Statute:

• Claimant: Priya, a lawful visitor (business meeting).
• Defendant: Office Towers, the occupier with control of the premises.
• Applicable Law: As Priya is a lawful visitor, the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) applies.

2. Establish the Duty of Care:

• Under s.2(2) OLA 1957, Office Towers owes Priya the 'common duty of care' to take reasonable steps to ensure she is reasonably safe for the purposes of her visit.

3. Breach of Duty:

• The state of the premises (a wet, slippery floor with no warning) presents a foreseeable risk of harm. This is a prima facie breach of the common duty of care. See Laverton v Kiapasha where the outcome was different because reasonable steps (slip-resistant tiles, mopping) had been taken.

4. Discharging the Duty via Independent Contractor:

• Office Towers may argue they discharged their duty by hiring CleanCo Ltd, an independent contractor, under s.2(4)(b) OLA 1957. For this defence to succeed, three conditions must be met:
  • (i) Reasonable to entrust the work: It is reasonable to hire specialist cleaners for a large office block. This is satisfied.
  • (ii) Competent contractor chosen: Office Towers must have taken reasonable steps to check CleanCo's competence (e.g., insurance, references). Assuming they did, this is satisfied.
  • (iii) Checked the work was done properly: The occupier must check the work if it is reasonable for them to do so. In Woodward v Mayor of Hastings, the occupier was liable for not checking icy steps (simple work). In Haseldine v Daw, they were not liable for a faulty lift (complex technical work). Ensuring a floor is not left dangerously slippery and that warnings are present is arguably a simple check. Office Towers' failure to do so, or to ensure CleanCo did, means they likely cannot rely on this defence and remain liable.

5. Causation and Damages:

• The breach (slippery floor) directly caused Priya's injury. The damages are recoverable under OLA 1957.
• Special Damages (quantifiable losses):
  • Medical Bills: £500
  • Loss of Earnings: 4 weeks x £400/week = £1,600
  • Total Special Damages: £500 + £1,600 = £2,100
• General Damages: For pain, suffering, and loss of amenity from the fractured wrist. This would be assessed by the court.

6. Conclusion:

• Office Towers is likely to be found liable under the OLA 1957. They failed to ensure the premises were reasonably safe and likely cannot discharge their duty by blaming the independent contractor, as they should have checked the work or ensured a warning system was in place. Priya can claim for her financial losses (£2,100) plus general damages.