Occupiers’ Liability Claims – Accidents on Privately Owned Property.

An occupiers’ liability claim is a claim brought where an individual sustains an injury whilst visiting a privately owned property. This category is wide ranging and include properties such as supermarkets and gyms.

An occupier has a duty of care to ensure that the premises is reasonably safe for all lawful visitors. This is not an absolute duty. An occupier will only be held responsible if the injury sustained was as a result of the occupier’s actions which made the premises unsafe, or their failure to maintain the premises.

For example, an occupier will be liable if they put a bar in a doorway and there is poor lighting which caused an individual to trip, or if failure to prevent a floor from being wet caused an individual to slip. In an occupiers’ liability case, photographic evidence of the hazard in question will be crucial to show the nature of the hazard and when exactly it was present.

The definition of an occupier is broad; this includes the owner of the premises but also those who have control over the premises.

An individual will become a visitor if they are given express permission to enter the property, implied permission or if they have a legal right to enter. An individual will have express permission to enter where they are specifically invited into the property, and implied permission if, for example, they enter a shop, as it is understood that anyone is allowed to enter. Those who have a legal right to enter a property include the police if they have a warrant to enter a particular property.

A claim against an occupier will often fail if they had put up a notice or sign which warned of the potential danger. However, there can be situations where the warning notice is not sufficient. The warning notice must enable the individual to be reasonably safe and must be clear with regards to the danger in question.

Other defences available to an occupier include that the individual contributed to their injury, or that they consented to the risk of danger.

The defence that an individual consented to the risk of danger will be particularly relevant if the occupier is running an inherently risky activity on their property, such as skiing or climbing.

In the case of Bennion v Adventure Snowdonia Park Ltd [2023], the individual bringing the claim, Mr Bennion, attended an artificial surfing lagoon. He was required to sign a statement of risk and watch a safety video. Mr Bennion fell from his surfboard near the side of the central pier, hit the floor of the lagoon and sadly sustained a spinal injury. The court held that Adventure Snowdonia Park were not liable. The court emphasised that there was a known risk of injury as a result of taking part in the activity and that surfing is an inherently risky activity. The court accepted that Adventure Snowdonia Park had failed to warn Mr Bennion that moving up to a more advanced level would expose him to a greater risk, and that they had failed to consider guidance recommending the minimum depth at which there was a risk of falling into the water. However, the court concluded that the likelihood of serious injury was very low and that Adventure Snowdonia Park had mitigated against the obvious risks.

If an individual is injured in an area that is publicly owned, such as on a road, which has been adopted by the local authority, or in a school managed by the local authority, this will be classed as a public liability claim.

If an employee is injured whilst at work, they will sometimes have the choice of bringing either employer liability claim against the employer or an occupier liability claim against the owner of the premises. Considering all the facts, we will be able to recommend the best course of action for an individual to take.

If you have any questions about occupier liability claims, please contact a member of the Personal Injury Team.