Occupier's Liability

• Occupier’s liability is the liability of the occupier of a premise in respect of injury suffered by a person who enters it as a result of the state of the property.
• It is the liability of a person who has occupation or control of a premise for injury sustained by anyone who enters it as a result of the state of the property or his negligence.
• The liability of an occupier depends on the kind of entrant e.g. invitee or trespasses.
• The liability of an occupier is based on the tort of negligence.
• Property includes land, buildings whether complete or not, fixed and moveable structures e.g. railway lines, equipment, machinery, vessels, etc.
• An occupier is a person who has possession, occupation use or some degree of control of a premise, fixed or movable structure. An occupier need not be the owner. Note: (a) multiple occupiers occupying different parts (b) A tenant, licensees, contractor local authority may be an occupier although not actually present in the premises to be in control/m According to Lord Pearson in Wheat v. Lacon & Co., the foundation of occupiers liability is occupational control, i.e., control associated with arising from presence in use of activity in premises.
• An owner is deemed to be in occupation possession even before he moves into it.

In Wheat v. Lacon & Co., where a paying guest in a public house was killed when he tell on the emergency staircase trying to get to the bar on the first floor. The court held that although the manager and owner were occupiers, they were not liable for the actions of the stranger in removing the bulb which resulted in bad lightening on the staircase.

In London Graving Dock v. Horton, the plaintiff was injured (an experienced wielder) owing to the in adequacy of certain staging on a ship which he had full knowledge of. The court held the defendants were not liable as he had full knowledge of the risk.

In Wheeler v. Copas, where the plaintiff was injured whilst using a ladder selected by him on the defendants form. The court held the defendants were not liable as the plaintiff was contributory negligent for not recognizing the inadequacy of the ladder.

In Fosbroke Hobbes v. Airwork Ltd., the court held the definition of premise covered aircraft.

Liability of occupier under common law

Under common law, the liability of an occupier depends on the category of the entrant:

1. Invitees: An invitee is a person who is on a property by the express or implied invitation of the occupier. He comes in to property with the consent of the occupier for a business which he an occupier have a common interest. Also called licencees with interest e.g. invited guests, lodgers, clients of a business, customers, etc. At common law an occupier owes a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of his invitees from dangers which he knows or ought to know about. The invitee is also expected to use and exercise reasonable care for his own safety whilst on a premises.
2. Licencees: A licencee is a person who has the permission of an occupier to be on a premises for a purpose which the occupier has no interest. A mere licence, bare or gratuitous licence is always revocable unlike licence backed by a consideration. A bare licencee takes the premises as he finds it. It is subject to the duty of the occupier to:
   1. Warn the licencee of concealed dangers by putting up notices.
   2. A duty not to set traps.
   3. A duty not to injure the licencee intentionally or recklessly by a positive act of misfeasance.
   A licencee may become a trespasser if he does not keep within the bounds of the permission or authority granted to him to be and property.
3. (3) Trespassers: A trespasser is a person who enters or interferes with the landed property of another person without legal justification. Generally, a trespasser takes the land as he finds it. However, an occupier owes the duty of common humanity to a trespasses to take such steps as common sense dictates to warn, at art, or reduce danger to an innocent trespassers. In Addie v. Dumbreck, where a child wondered into land and was killed after he climbed on to a piece of haulage apparatus. It has held that there was no duty of care owed to trespassers to ensure that they were safe when coming onto the land but only a duty not to inflict harm will fully Viscount Dunedin defined a trespasser as a person who goes on land without invitation and whose presence is either unknown to the proprietor or if known is practically objected to. In Latham v. Johnson, it was held that the owner of a property is under a duty not to injure the trespasser willfully but otherwise a men trespasses at his own risk.

An occupier in fulfilling his common duty to humanity may erect gates, fences, keeping it locked or employ security personnel to ensure trespassers do no stray on to his property. BRB v. Herrington.

Occupier's liability under statute

The Law Reform (Torts) Law Lagos State is modeled after the English Statute, English Occupier’s Act 1957. In states without Law Reform (Torts) Law, the common law principle of occupiers liability will apply. Under the statute, the category of person who enter land are: (a) Visitors (b) Trespassers.

1. Visitors: are lawful entrants of premises under the statute which an occupier owes a common duty of care.
2. Trespassers: as a category of entrants of premises was carried over from common law. Thus, trespassers are not covered and protected and protected by statute. The common law rules of duty of common humanity as established in BRD v. Herrington apply to date and protect trespassers.

Visitor under Law Reform (Torts) Law, S. 7(2) of LR (T)L, LS defines a visitor as a person who would at common law be treated as invitees or licencees. A visitor is a person lawfully on a premises either by express or implied permission of an occupier. Implied permission is a question of fact determined by the circumstances of each case. The burden is on the plaintiff claiming a right to sue. Implied permission may be inferred from the occupier’s conduct e.g. knowing of entry and not objecting. Similarly, a person who enters a premises in order to communicate or deliver an item or message is deemed to have implied permission to enter a premises unless he knows or ought to know his entry is prohibited.

S. 8(1) of LR (T) L; LS provides that an occupier owes a common duty of care to all his visitors so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor by agreement. S. 8(2) of LR(T)L, LS provides that the common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.

It is a codification of the common law duty to act as a reasonable man with respect to the safety of a visitor. The common duty of care is to ensure that a visitor is safe and not necessarily to make the entire premises safe. Where a visitor deviates from the purpose for which he is permitted to be on a premises no duty of care is owed, he becomes a trespasser.

The standard of care

The statute provides guidance as to the standard/degree of care to be expected from an occupier with respect to:

1. Child visitors.
2. A visitor entering a premises in exercise of his calling/profession.

In Phipps v. Rochester Corp, it was held that parents were entirely responsible for the safety of very young children. Nowadays, the court are understandably more lenient to a child trespasser and will readily hold a negligent occupier liable although there is a general rule of law that parent have a duty to ensure the safety of their children.

The duty to ensure that a child who is on a property is safe is subjective from the point of view of the child. S. 8(3) of LR(T)L provides that with respect to children an occupier must be prepared for child visitors to be less careful than adults.

For the safety of children, NB;

1. In the case of very young children, an occupier is entitled to presume that the child is accompanied by an adult.
2. A warning to an adult may not be warning to a child.
3. If with the knowledge of a child trespasser on his land, and reasonable steps are taken to bring it to the attention of visitors/entrants.

Cases

In Lewis v. Ronald where the plaintiff was delivering food to an occupier and decided to pass a dark part of the premises where is fell and suffered injuries. The court held that the occupiers were not liable since he was aware of the risk and he took it.

In Bird v. Holbrook, the defendant wanted to protect certain fruits and without putting notice set up a spring gun which married one of the legs of the plaintiff. The court held that the defendant was liable for the injury.