Occupiers' Liability to Entrants and Trespassers
Occupiers' liability questions test two things: whether the defendant is an occupier at all, and what standard of care was owed to the particular entrant.
Who is an occupier
Occupier is a question of control, not ownership (Wheat v Lacon). There may be several occupiers of the same premises, each owing a duty in respect of the area he controls, and an independent contractor working on site may be one. The duty is personal and, in substance, non-delegable.
Visitors
The common law duty to visitors (invitees and licensees) was systematised in England by the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, which Ghanaian courts treat as persuasive. The occupier must take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited. The 1957 Act section 2(3) factors are the familiar ones: likelihood of the visitor's presence, magnitude of the risk, practicability of precautions, and the purpose of the visit.
- Warnings must be enough to make the visitor reasonably safe; a mere notice does not discharge the duty where the danger is unusual (Roles v Nathan - chimney sweeps told repeatedly of the risk).
- Children are less careful, and allurement matters (Glasgow Corporation v Taylor - poisonous berries); the occupier must consider the child's age and curiosity.
- Independent contractors may be entrusted where the work is technical and reasonable checks are made (Haseldine v Daw).
Trespassers
Addie v Dumbreck imposed only a duty not to inflict deliberate or reckless harm. British Railways Board v Herrington replaced this with a duty of common humanity, and the English Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 restates it. The occupier owes a duty where he is aware of a danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists, knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the trespasser is in its vicinity, and the risk is one against which he may reasonably be expected to offer some protection. Ghanaian courts apply the Herrington standard as the common law.
Worked example
A child of nine climbs into a building site and falls into an unguarded trench filled with water. Control places the contractor as occupier; children are known to play there, so presence is foreseeable; a fence or cover is cheap. Under Herrington and the 1984 criteria a duty is owed and breach is likely, with a substantial reduction for the child's own contributory negligence or volenti if he ignored a clear barrier.
Traps that cost marks
Equating ownership with occupation; assuming a warning always suffices; applying the adult standard to a child entrant; and saying a trespasser is owed no duty at all after Herrington.