Defences under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984
Occupiers can raise various defences under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 to mitigate or negate their liability for injuries sustained by visitors and non-visitors on their premises. These defences help balance the duties owed by occupiers with the responsibilities of those entering the property. Common defences include warnings, contributory negligence, and consent (volenti non fit injuria). Understanding these defences is essential for both occupiers and claimants in assessing liability and potential compensation.
Warnings and Notices
One of the primary defences available to occupiers is the provision of adequate warnings about potential dangers:
- ★ Adequate Warnings: Occupiers can discharge their duty of care by providing clear and sufficient warnings of any dangers on the premises. The effectiveness of this defence depends on the visibility, clarity, and adequacy of the warning given the circumstances.
- ★ Limitations: The warning must enable visitors to avoid the danger or proceed with caution. However, warnings may not be sufficient if the danger is severe, and additional protective measures might be required. Under the 1984 Act, warnings may also be relevant to non-visitors, particularly if the danger is not obvious.
- ★ Case Law Example: In **Roles v Nathan (1963)**, the occupiers were not liable for the deaths of chimney sweeps who ignored warnings about a dangerous condition. The court held that the occupiers had adequately warned the deceased of the dangers.
Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence is a defence that reduces the damages recoverable by the claimant if they were partly at fault for their injuries:
- ★ Partial Defence: If the claimant's actions contributed to the harm they suffered, the court can reduce the compensation proportionately. This defence applies when the claimant fails to take reasonable care for their own safety.
- ★ Assessment of Fault: The court assesses the extent to which the claimant's negligence contributed to the accident and reduces the damages accordingly. This defence can apply under both the 1957 and 1984 Acts.
- ★ Case Law Example: In **Staples v West Dorset District Council (1995)**, the claimant slipped on algae-covered rocks at a seaside location. The court found that the risk was obvious and the claimant's failure to take care contributed to the accident, reducing the damages awarded.
Consent (Volenti Non Fit Injuria)
The defence of consent, or volenti non fit injuria, applies when the claimant willingly accepts the risk of harm:
- ★ Voluntary Assumption of Risk: This defence is applicable if the claimant had full knowledge of the risk and voluntarily accepted it, either explicitly or implicitly. The claimant cannot recover damages if they consented to the risk of injury.
- ★ Scope of Consent: The scope of consent must be clear and specific. The claimant must have had a genuine choice in accepting the risk, without coercion or undue pressure.
- ★ Case Law Example: In **Simms v Leigh Rugby Football Club (1969)**, a rugby player who was injured by colliding with a wall during a match was found to have voluntarily accepted the inherent risks of the game, including the possibility of such injuries.
Exclusion Clauses
Occupiers may attempt to limit or exclude their liability through exclusion clauses or disclaimers:
- ★ Validity and Fairness: The validity of exclusion clauses depends on whether they are fair and reasonable. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, occupiers cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence.
- ★ Notice and Agreement: For an exclusion clause to be effective, it must be brought to the attention of the visitor before they enter the premises. The visitor must have agreed to the terms, either expressly or implicitly.
- ★ Case Law Example: In **Ashdown v Samuel Williams & Sons Ltd (1957)**, the court upheld an exclusion clause that was prominently displayed and brought to the claimant's attention, effectively limiting the occupier's liability.
Conclusion
Defences under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 provide occupiers with means to limit their liability for injuries sustained on their premises. By issuing adequate warnings, proving contributory negligence, demonstrating consent, or using valid exclusion clauses, occupiers can protect themselves from full liability. Understanding these defences is crucial for both occupiers and claimants in navigating legal claims related to premises liability, ensuring fair and just outcomes.