Occupiers' Liability

What is the best definition of a lawful visitor?

• Someone who enters premises with implied permission

• Someone who is invited to the premises

• Someone who has express or implied permission to enter the premises

• Someone who has implied permission to be on the premises

Answer explanation

A lawful visitor is defined as someone who has express or implied permission to enter the premises. This includes both those who are invited and those who have a reasonable expectation of permission.

Which case established that an occupier gives an implied license to any member of the public to come through the gate and knock on the door for lawful business?

• Lowery v Walker

• Robson v Hallett

• Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

• Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council

Answer explanation

The case Robson v Hallett established that an occupier implicitly allows the public to enter and engage in lawful business, such as knocking on the door, thereby granting an implied license.

Which of the following is a repeated visitor?

• A. A homeowner notices a neighbour using a shortcut through their garden every day and never objects

• B. A shop owner allows customers to enter but places a “No Trespassing” sign inside the store

• C. A land owner verbally tells hikers they are not allowed on their property, but they continue to enter

• D. A restaurant owner locks the doors after closing time to prevent further visitors

Answer explanation

Choice A describes a neighbour who consistently uses the garden as a shortcut without objection, indicating they are a repeated visitor. The other options involve restrictions or objections that prevent repeated visits.

What is the legal status of Betty, aged 8, who sees a swing in a neighbouring garden and runs down the path to climb on it?

• She is an implied invitee because the swing acts as an allurement

• She is a trespasser because she entered the premises without permission, even though the swing acts as an allurement

• She is a repeated visitor because she has visited the garden multiple times before

• She is an express invitee because she was explicitly invited to use the swing

Answer explanation

Betty is considered an implied invitee because the swing in the neighbouring garden acts as an allurement, attracting her to enter the property, even though she did not have explicit permission. There was no warning or fence or wall so she is not a trespasser.

Which is the best description of a trespasser?

• Someone with express permission to be on the premises

• Someone with implied permission to be on the premises

• Someone without express or implied permission to be on the premises

• Someone who is a professional carrying out their work

Answer explanation

A trespasser is defined as someone who enters a property without any permission, either express or implied. Therefore, the correct description is someone without express or implied permission to be on the premises.

Who is an occupier?

• Someone who is the owner of the premises.

• Someone in physical possession of the premises.

• Someone in control of the premises.

• Someone who has a legal interest in the premises.

Answer explanation

An occupier is defined as someone in control of the premises, which includes having the authority to manage or use the property, regardless of ownership or legal interest.

Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, what is the scope of the duty of care owed to lawful visitors?

• To ensure the premises are completely safe

• To take reasonable care to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises

• To provide warnings for all potential dangers

• To eliminate all risks on the premises

Answer explanation

Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, the duty of care to lawful visitors is to take reasonable care to ensure they are reasonably safe while using the premises, not to guarantee complete safety or eliminate all risks.

What is the higher degree of care required for child visitors under s2(3) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?

• The premises must be completely safe for children

• The premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age

• The occupier must provide warnings for all potential dangers specifically to children

• The occupier must eliminate all risks that could harm children

Answer explanation

Under s2(3) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, the occupier must ensure that the premises are reasonably safe for a child of that age, recognizing that children may not be aware of potential dangers.

In which case did the court decide that the occupier was not liable because the parents should have been supervising the very young child?

• Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

• Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme

• Phipps v Rochester

• Roles v Nathan

Answer explanation

In Phipps v Rochester, the court ruled that the occupier was not liable for the child's injuries as he was aged 5 and his parents should be supervising their very young child.

What is the standard of care required for persons in the exercise of their calling under s2(3) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?

• The occupier must ensure the premises are completely safe for them

• The occupier must take reasonable care to see that they are reasonably safe while on the premises

• The occupier must provide warnings for all potential dangers specifically to them

• The occupier may expect that they will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to their work

Answer explanation

Under s2(3) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, the occupier may expect that a person coming employed to do work on the premises will know and guard against any special risks that is normal in their job.