Wheat v Lacon

Facts

The defendant brewery owned a public house. Its manager lived with his wife in the private part of the premises under a service licence, and the brewery allowed the manager's wife to take in paying guests there. The claimant's husband, a paying guest, fell down a back staircase in the private quarters at night and was killed. The staircase handrail stopped short of the bottom and the light bulb was missing. His widow sued the brewery and the manager under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957.

History

The claim failed at trial and in the Court of Appeal.

Issue

Whether the brewery, which had given its manager a licence rather than a lease of the private quarters, was an occupier of them within the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957; and, if so, whether it was in breach of the common duty of care.

Held

Appeal dismissed. The brewery was an occupier of the private part of the premises, jointly with the manager and his wife, because it retained sufficient control. But the staircase was not unreasonably dangerous for a visitor taking ordinary care, and the missing bulb, apparently removed by a stranger, was not a breach by the occupiers, so there was no liability.

Ratio

• Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 an occupier is a person who has a sufficient degree of control over premises to put him under a duty of care towards those who come lawfully onto them; control need not be exclusive, and two or more persons may be occupiers of the same premises, each owing a duty appropriate to his degree of control.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• The 1957 Act did not define occupier and left the meaning to the common law, under which the test is whether the person has a sufficient degree of control over the premises.
• Because the manager occupied under a licence and the brewery retained the right to enter and repair, it kept sufficient control to be an occupier even of the part reserved for the manager's private use.
• The content of each occupier's duty depends on the extent of his control, so the brewery's duty related principally to the structure of the premises while the manager's related to matters within his day-to-day control.
• A visitor using ordinary care would not have been injured by the short handrail, and the occupiers could not be blamed for the absence of the bulb removed without their knowledge.

Where it fits in the module

Under liability to visitors, Wheat v Lacon answers the threshold question of who owes the common duty of care under the 1957 Act. It shows liability attaching to control rather than title and explains how duties are shared between several occupiers. It also illustrates that a finding of occupation is only the first step, since breach is judged by what the reasonable occupier would do for a visitor taking reasonable care.

Criticisms

• A test of sufficient control is flexible but uncertain, making it hard to predict in advance which of several parties will be treated as an occupier.
• Distinguishing licences from leases to decide occupation turns on the form of the arrangement rather than practical control of the premises.
• Imposing a duty on an occupier while finding no breach on facts involving a defective handrail and a dark staircase arguably sets the standard of safety too low.
• Splitting duties between occupiers according to their spheres of control can leave a claimant uncertain whom to sue and with a gap where each points to the other.