The following Property guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957), an occupier of property owes a common law duty of care to all his visitors in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them. He must take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
In Esdale, the Court of Appeal held that the test for compliance is objective. The standards of safety which a council set itself as a matter of policy were not determinative.
The starting point for the existence of a duty of care is usually the threefold Caparo test, where:
the harm which occurred must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct
a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood exists between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage
it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability
The judgment in Edwards makes it clear that just because a danger exists, it doesn’t mean that a duty of care, under OLA 1957, automatically arises. Remoteness of risk is key and that there is no duty to protect or warn against obvious dangers—the visitor must take some responsibility. As the Court of Appeal stated ‘an occupier is not an insurer against injuries’.
The degree of risk is
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234