# Occupiers' liability: visitors and non-visitors

> **Key takeaway:** Visitor → OLA 1957 s.2 common duty. Non-visitor → OLA 1984 s.1 (knowledge thresholds; limited duty). Occupier = control (Wheat). Obvious risks: Tomlinson. Warnings may help but are not automatic discharge.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Commercial
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/Commercial/occupiers-liability
- **Keywords:** occupiers liability, Occupiers Liability Act 1957, Occupiers Liability Act 1984, visitor, trespasser, Tomlinson, common duty of care, premises

## What is this about?

Occupiers' liability is a statutory overlay on negligence for dangers due to the state of premises. The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 governs lawful visitors; the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 governs persons other than visitors (including many trespassers) with a narrower duty triggered by specific knowledge conditions.

## What is the core rule?

Under the 1957 Act, an occupier owes the 'common duty of care' to visitors: to take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted to be there (s.2). Under the 1984 Act, a duty to non-visitors arises only if the occupier is aware of the danger (or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists), knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the other is in the vicinity of the danger, and the risk is one against which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection (s.1) — and the duty is limited in scope (primarily personal injury).

## What are the elements or test?

1. Who is the occupier (control of premises — Wheat v E Lacon)?
2. Is the claimant a visitor (1957 Act) or non-visitor (1984 Act)?
3. What is the danger arising from the state of the premises (vs activity duty still in ordinary negligence)?
4. 1957: has the common duty been discharged (warnings, systems, independent contractors — s.2(4))?
5. 1984: are the three threshold conditions in s.1(3) met, and what protection is reasonably required?
6. Defences: contributory negligence, volenti, exclusion (subject to UCTA/CRA limits)

## Which authorities matter?

- **Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, s.2** — Common duty of care to visitors; warnings and independent contractors addressed in s.2(4).
- **Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, s.1** — Duty to persons other than visitors; conditions for duty and limited content.
- **Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552** — House of Lords on who is an occupier: sufficient control of premises.
- **Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47, [2004] 1 AC 46** — House of Lords: free will, obvious risks, and limits on duties to protect against obvious dangers, influential for both Acts.

## How does this apply in practice?

Activity-based duties (how work is done) may still be analysed in ordinary negligence rather than as state-of-premises duties. Children and skilled visitors affect what is reasonable. Always identify visitor status before choosing the Act.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Applying the 1957 common duty to trespassers without the 1984 threshold conditions
- Treating any accident on land as occupiers' liability without a premises danger
- Assuming a warning always discharges the 1957 duty
- Ignoring Tomlinson on obvious risks and personal responsibility

## When would a practitioner use this?

Core for premises PI claims, public authority land cases, and drafting visitor/trespasser risk assessments.

## Quick reference

Visitor → OLA 1957 s.2 common duty. Non-visitor → OLA 1984 s.1 (knowledge thresholds; limited duty). Occupier = control (Wheat). Obvious risks: Tomlinson. Warnings may help but are not automatic discharge.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*