Occupiers' Liability Act 1962

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1962 sets the duty owed by an occupier of premises to lawful visitors when harm is caused by dangers linked to the state of the premises or to things done, or not done, there. The core standard is a common duty of care: taking reasonable care so a visitor is reasonably safe using the premises for the purpose they were invited or permitted to be there.

For business owners, this usually means you should actively manage site hazards, not just react after an incident. The Act also deals with warnings, independent contractors, contractual visitors, landlord repair duties and situations where lease or contract terms try to alter responsibility.

The Act applies to occupiers of premises and, in some cases, people occupying or controlling fixed or movable structures. The definition of premises includes land, and structure includes vessels, vehicles and aircraft. The Act replaces common law rules for the duty owed by an occupier to visitors in relation to dangers due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted there.

It also extends to damage to property, including property of people who are not themselves visitors, where the Act says the rules apply in like manner. That makes the Act relevant not only to personal injury risks but also to damaged stock, tools, equipment or other goods on site.

The Act is most likely to matter when your business invites or permits people onto a site, or when people enter under a legal right. Trigger points often arise in ordinary operations: opening to the public, receiving deliveries, arranging repairs, setting up temporary works, or allowing access through shared building areas.

Common examples include a customer using a wet entrance, a courier entering a loading bay, a contractor walking through a workshop, or a visitor using stairs while maintenance is underway. The legal question is not whether the premises were perfectly safe. It is whether reasonable care was taken so the visitor was reasonably safe for the purpose of being there.

The Act says an occupier owes the same common duty of care to all visitors, unless the duty is extended, restricted, modified or excluded by agreement or otherwise where that is legally possible. That common duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which they are invited or permitted to be there.

This is a practical standard. It looks at the circumstances, including the degree of care or lack of care ordinarily expected from that kind of visitor. A business can therefore consider how the area is used, who is likely to enter, what hazards are obvious or hidden, and what steps are realistic and reasonable to reduce the risk.

The Act makes three practical points that matter in day-to-day operations. First, a warning does not automatically excuse the occupier. A sign or verbal warning only helps if, in all the circumstances, it was enough to make the visitor reasonably safe. A small sign beside a serious hazard may not be enough if a barrier, closure or repair was the reasonable step.

Second, using an independent contractor does not automatically shift the problem away from the occupier. If faulty work creates the danger, the occupier is not answerable without more only where it was reasonable to entrust the work to that contractor and the occupier took reasonable steps to check competence and that the work had been properly done. Third, there is no obligation in respect of risks willingly accepted by the visitor.

The Act deals specifically with situations where an occupier is bound by contract to permit people who are not parties to that contract to enter or use the premises. In that case, the common duty of care owed to those people as visitors cannot be restricted or excluded by that contract. Subject to the contract, the duty can also include performing contractual obligations that go beyond the ordinary common duty of care.

The Act also says that where people enter, use, or bring or send goods to premises under a contractual right with the occupier or person in control, the duty owed in that occupier capacity is the common duty of care unless the contract shows a contrary intention. For businesses, this means service agreements, venue hire arrangements and occupancy documents can affect risk allocation, but they do not always remove the occupier's baseline responsibility.

The Act is especially relevant where a landlord and tenant share responsibility for a site. It provides for contribution between landlord and tenant as joint tortfeasors where both are at fault and one would have been liable to the visitor. It also creates a specific rule where a tenancy puts maintenance or repair obligations on the landlord.

In that case, the landlord can owe to lawful persons and their goods on the premises the same duty as if the landlord were an occupier and they were there by invitation or permission.

For SMEs, this means lease drafting and day-to-day building management both matter. A tenant may control the shop floor while the landlord controls structural elements or common areas. If a defect sits in a grey area, both parties may face exposure. The Act also says a landlord is not in default unless the failure to carry out the obligation would be actionable by the occupier or, for a superior landlord, by the inferior landlord.

The Act does not apply to obligations under or by virtue of contracts for the hire of, or carriage for reward of persons or goods in, a vehicle, vessel, aircraft or other means of transport. It also does not apply to obligations under or by virtue of a contract of bailment. That means some transport and custody arrangements sit outside this Act's framework.

The Act also preserves some common law questions. It regulates the nature of the duty owed by an occupier to visitors, but it does not alter the common law rules about who is treated as an occupier or who is treated as a visitor. For business owners, that means the practical analysis still starts with control, permission and the reason the person was on the site.

If your business has visitors on site, the best practical response is a repeatable premises safety system. The Act is framed around reasonable care in the circumstances, so your records should show how hazards were identified, assessed, controlled and followed up. This is particularly important for temporary hazards, contractor work and defects that sit between landlord and tenant responsibilities.

Good records also help when a business relies on warnings, says a visitor accepted a risk, or argues that an independent contractor caused the problem. The point is not paperwork for its own sake. It is evidence that the business took reasonable steps before the incident happened.