The case law on occupiers' liability illuminates the application of the statutory tests, the definition of 'occupier' and 'premises', the special rules for children, warnings, and the balance struck in the 1984 Act.
*Pre-1957 common law: Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358 established the harsh rule that an occupier owed no duty of care to trespassers save to refrain from deliberately or recklessly inflicting harm. A four-year-old child was killed in the defendants' wheel machinery. The House of Lords held no duty was owed: the child was a trespasser and the occupier had no duty to fence or warn. The decision epitomised the rigid categories of the old law and was the target of reform efforts culminating in the 1957 Act and later Herrington*.
*Occupation and control: Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552* clarified who qualifies as an 'occupier'. The brewery owned the pub; the manager had exclusive use of private quarters. A guest fell on an unlit staircase. The House of Lords held both brewery and manager were occupiers, each having a degree of control. On the facts, neither breached the duty (the absence of a bulb did not of itself constitute failure to make the visitor safe). The case shows that multiple occupiers may coexist and that 'occupier' is defined functionally by control, not by estate in land.
*Children and allurement: Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44* involved a seven-year-old who ate poisonous berries in a public park. The berries were attractive and the danger not obvious to a child. The House of Lords held the occupier liable: the combination of allurement and concealed danger to children imposed a duty to fence or warn. The principle survives in s 2(3)(a) OLA 1957 and underpins much of the case law on child trespassers under the 1984 Act.
*Persons in the exercise of their calling: Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117* concerned chimney sweeps killed by carbon monoxide fumes while sealing a flue. The Court of Appeal held the occupier not liable. Section 2(3)(b) permits an occupier to expect professionals to guard against risks incidental to their work. The sweeps were warned and, as experts, should have appreciated the danger. The case shows the limits of the occupier's duty where the visitor is better placed to manage the risk.
*Warnings: Staples v West Dorset DC (1995) 93 LGR 536* held that an adequate warning can discharge the duty even for an obvious danger. The claimant slipped on algae-covered steps. A warning sign was present. The Court of Appeal held the notice sufficient, given that the danger was also visually obvious. The decision illustrates that s 2(4)(a) does not impose strict liability: the duty is to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe, not to guarantee safety.
*Trespassers and the 1984 Act: British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877 overruled Addie v Dumbreck* and introduced the 'common humanity' standard. A six-year-old trespasser was burned on an electrified railway line that passed through a gap in the fence. The House of Lords held that the occupier, knowing of the gap, the danger, and the presence of children, owed a duty of reasonable care in the circumstances. The decision was fact-sensitive and controversial; Parliament codified it in the 1984 Act.
*Obvious dangers and policy: Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47, [2004] 1 AC 46* is the leading modern authority. The claimant, aged 18, dived into a lake at a country park, struck his head, and was paralysed. Swimming was prohibited and warning signs erected. The House of Lords held no breach of duty under the 1984 Act (the claimant being a trespasser for the purpose of swimming) and, obiter, no breach under the 1957 Act either. Lord Hoffmann emphasised that the law should not impose liability for obvious risks freely and voluntarily undertaken, lest it restrict socially valuable activities and encourage a 'grey and dull' risk-averse culture. The case remains highly influential and controversial, privileging personal autonomy and occupier freedom over paternalism.
*Young trespassers: Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 39 addressed an 11-year-old who climbed an external fire escape at a hospital and fell. The Court of Appeal held that the defendants owed no duty under the 1984 Act. The structure was not inherently dangerous; the risk arose entirely from the boy's (obvious) dangerous activity. Longmore LJ distinguished between a danger due to the state of the premises and one due to what the claimant chooses to do. The case signals a restrictive interpretation of the 1984 Act, in line with Tomlinson*, and underscores judicial concern about imposing excessive burdens on occupiers.