16. Occupiers' liability

Why the common law matters here

Sierra Leone receives the common law of England, together with English statutes of general application in force on 1 January 1880. England's Occupiers' Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 came much later, so they are not part of Sierra Leone law. The common law categories therefore still matter here, while modern English cases remain persuasive.

Who is an occupier?

An occupier is anyone who has enough control over premises to be able to make them safe. Ownership is not needed. There can be more than one occupier at the same time, as in Wheat v Lacon, where both a brewery and the pub manager living there were occupiers. 'Premises' covers land and buildings, and also things like ships, scaffolding and lifts.

The categories of entrant

Invitees: Someone who comes on business that interests both sides, such as a customer in a shop or a workman fixing pipes. The occupier must use reasonable care to protect him from unusual dangers which the occupier knows or ought to know about. This is the rule in Indermaur v Dames.

Licensees: Someone who is allowed in but brings the occupier no business benefit, such as a social guest or a person allowed to use a short cut. The occupier must warn him of concealed dangers he actually knows about (a 'trap'). The duty is lower than to an invitee.

Contractual entrants: Someone who enters under a contract, such as a hotel guest or a cinema customer. The duty depends on the terms of the contract; usually there is an implied term that the premises are as safe as reasonable care can make them.

Entrants as of right: People such as police with a warrant enter by right of law, not the occupier's permission. They are usually treated at least as licensees.

Trespassers: Someone who enters without permission. Under Addie v Dumbreck the occupier owed a trespasser no duty except not to hurt him deliberately or recklessly. In British Railways Board v Herrington the House of Lords softened this: where an occupier knows of a serious danger and that trespassers, especially children, are likely to come, he owes a 'duty of common humanity' to take reasonable steps, judged by his own means.

Children

Occupiers must expect children to be less careful than adults. Something dangerous but tempting, like bright berries or an unguarded machine, can be an 'allurement' that makes a child an implied licensee and makes the occupier liable, as in Glasgow Corporation v Taylor.

But the main responsibility for very young children lies with their parents. In Phipps v Rochester Corporation an occupier was entitled to assume that small children would not wander onto a building site alone.

Independent contractors

If an occupier reasonably hires a competent contractor to do technical work, such as servicing a lift, he is not usually liable for the contractor's careless work. In Haseldine v Daw the lift engineers, not the building owner, were liable when a lift fell.

Defences and limits

Warnings may discharge the duty if they are enough to make the visitor reasonably safe. A visitor who accepts a known risk may be met by volenti non fit injuria, and contributory negligence may reduce damages. An occupier does not have to protect adults from obvious dangers they choose to face, as in Tomlinson v Congleton.

Many occupiers' liability claims in practice are argued in ordinary negligence, using Donoghue v Stevenson. Students should be ready to argue both ways.