Occupiers Liability and Psychiatric Harm: A Case Study

This case study discusses the liability of Carlton Parks Limited (CPL) in relation to Leo and Mille, and liability of CPL against Nia and Owen. It explores the relevant provision and case laws of Occupier's liability Act in support of the victims. The report also discusses the provisions in relation to psychiatric illness and the criteria that arise the liability over the CPL due to negligence.

Case Study occupiers
liability and psychiatric
harm

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
TASK ..............................................................................................................................................3
Leo and Mille...................................................................................................................................3
Nia and Owen..................................................................................................................................6
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................9
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................10

INTRODUCTION
The UK common law is complex and diversified. The law of tort is defined as civil
wrong that makes person liable for wrongful act and allows the inured party to claim
compensation or damages. The UK common law is based on the principle of equity which means
just, fair and reasonable treatment with all the citizens. There are several legislation that are laid
down for the protection of civil wrong and provides remedy to the victims (Birkinshaw, 2003).
The occupier's liability is referred as the duty owned by landowner to individual who comes
onto their premises. It is not necessary that the occupier resides, work and physically present but
is any kind of injury occurs on their land will be held liable for his act of negligence. The
occupier's liability Act of 1957 specifically based on the principle of remoteness of damage as it
involves an element of breach of duty, personal injury and damage to other person. This report
will cover the liability of CPL in relation to Leo and Mille, and liability of CPL against Nia and
Owen. Further, it will analyse the relevant provision and case laws of Occupier's liability Act in
support of the victims.
TASK
Leo and Mille
Carlton Parks Limited (CPL) is a theme park situated in outskirts of Chestermouth. This
theme park is well- known for its various tragic incident that take place recently. The first
incident was taken place when Leo, an eight years old girl visited the theme park along with her
parents. Leo grasped against the wooden railing that has separated from lower side and due to
which Leo has been fallen down and suffered serious injury of fractured on her wrist and collar
bone.
The Occupier's liability Act: This concept is based on the law of tort. The act of
negligence comes under the purview of occupier liability act and made them liable for his act. Th
Act of 1957 was introduced to protect the safety and security of individual who are using the
land of the owners. But it was amended by the occupier's liability Act of 1984 in order to extend
the scope of the previous Act (Binchy, 2018). Earlier, this Act was only covered the liability of
occupier who are lawfully visit their land but after the enactment of 1984, this includes the
unlawful visitors as well to protect them from causing personal injury or loss by the act of

occupiers. The Act defines the common duty of care owned by the occupier and take reasonable
care to maintain safety and security of their visitors.
According to section 1 of the Occupier's Liability Act of 1957 defines the word 'premises' which
includes any fixed and movable component such as building, factories, land, vessel. Aircraft,
ladder, wooden fence etc. The duty to take reasonable care and standards must ensure to the
visitors under all circumstances for which occupier's is invited or allowed by the occupier to
them as per the provision given under section 2(2) of OLA, 1957. The safety of children required
highest duty of care when permitted them to enter into the premises as defined under Section
2(3)(a) of OLA. The tort liability of the occupier varies according to the circumstances and
intensity of the incident that is suffered by the visitors. In the case of Wheat v. E Lacon & Co.
Ltd., ( 1966) the Court had identified the scope of lawful visitors as per the Occupier's Liability
Act of 1957. Further, it was observed that the lawful visitors will be a person who is expressly
invite and permit by the occupier, would be limited for certain place and time (Bodenheimer,
2013). In case of repeated visitors, someone continuously visiting a same place and occupier
observing their act and does not raise any objection , then it would be considered as implied
consent and permission of the occupier.
In the present case, the conduct of the Carlton Parks Limited is governed by the Act of the
Occupier's Liability of 1957, as visitors are lawfully permitted to take ride and enjoy the
adventurous park within the occupier's premises. According to Section 2(6) of the OLA, 1957,
people entering into the theme park with legal rights and have permission of occupier would be
considered as lawful visitors of the CPL. The injury suffered by the Leo, imposes the liability
over the CPL's owner as they were failed to take reasonable care and standard to protect the child
from the harm and suffered serious injury of fracture on wrist. The CPL is entitled maintain the
common duty to take care of all the equipments and ensure whether they are working properly
or not so that no cause or injury can be suffered by any of the visitors. The law will be applicable
on the owner or manager of the Carlton Parks limited to provide all the precautionary measures
to the visitors so that they can easily enjoy the theme park by the continuos incident of injury
creates the liability over the CPL. The duty to take reasonable care is not an absolute duty to
prevent injury but they are responsible to assess the risk and carry out continuos inspection of all
the equipments to reasonably safe the visitors from wrongful act. However, the owner of the
CPL must be more aware with providing the safety to the children as they are not much capable

to form decision and think right or wrong so it is important for them to prevent the child from
any danger and harm.
The repetitive accident that take place in CPL allowed Leo's parents to claim damages for the
breach of duty (Driver & Murphy, 1963). There is complete failure on the part of owner as they
are not adhere with safety measures that are important to avoid serious incident of bodily harm.
In the case of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] 3 WLR 705, the doctrine of free
will was established. The Court held that the risk involves due to visitor's own action and
occupier take all the measures to prevent them from diving but they refused and suffered
fractured. In this case, the occupier was free from liability as they were reasonably ensure all the
safety measures in their premises. The Court highlighted the essential factors to determine the
breach of duty caused by the occupier.
It includes:
 Certain apprehension of injury.
 Severity of injury or harm.
 Cost involved for maintaining safety in the premises.
 Reasonable care and standards has been followed or not .
The occupier was not repaired the wooden fence which was rotten over a long time and dripping
water from the roof. They have breached their duty to take reasonable care in order to ensure
safety of child. Also, parents are also responsible towards their child to prevent them from going
in such a place which have certain defects and not properly equipped (Cooke, 2017). It is
important for them to protect their child from any harm that may cause at theme park. They had
better opportunity to avoid serious accident by using the danger sign so, that no person can
trespass that area but such careless act arose the tortious liability over the occupier of CPL.
In relation to Mille
An incident met by the Millie, a 20 years old student who illegally trespass the property of the
CPL by climbing onto the high perimeter fence and some of the light was passes through the ride
and fall onto Millie's head due to which her skull was fractured.
The Occupier's liability Act, 1984 deals with the unlawful visitors who trespass the land
of the occupier. This Act imposes a duty over the visitors to take reasonable standards to ensure
the safety of the trespassers in order to any risk through which they can suffered any danger in

the premises. According to section 1(3) of the Act, 1984 deals with a duty owed to trespassers in
relation to associated risk if :
 The occupier is aware with the danger or has reasonable apprehension of its existence;
 Occupier knows that there is possibility of danger;
 The occupier offer some expected protection to the trespasser.
In the present case, the accident met by the Millie is due to her own act of unlawful trespass
and the occupier is exclude from the liability because they were not aware with the possibility of
entrance from the high perimeter fence. The owner of the CPL will not be liable for the breach of
duty as per the occupier's liability Act of 1984. Millie was unlawfully trespass the premises of
CPL as entrance from high fence arise the possibility of harm that is suffered by the her. In the
case of Lowrey v. Walker [1911] AC 10, the Court has defined the word trespasser as it is a
person who deliberately use the land of the occupier, without his consent and permission.
The CPL will not be liable for the injury suffered by the Millie because there is no deliberate
intention of causing harm to the trespassers and the sudden act of losing wire caused serious
injury to the her. In the case of Robert Addie & Sons. v. Dumbreck (1929) AC 358, the Court
held that the use of endanger tools or concealment of any equipments, if causes any harm to the
trespasser will be held liable to the occupier.
Therefore, the CPL was unaware with the associated risk that were raised due to loose of lights
and fell onto Millie's head. She can use the actual path to avoid such accident and can enjoy the
theme park but her unauthorised entry from high perimeter fence has excluded them from
liability as per Occupier's liability Act of 1984.
Nia and Owen
Nia met with an accident due to electric spark which spread almost the whole waltzers ride.
Due to this, she has suffered with the mental disorders and her brother has seen all the accident
from the ride and very much concerned with the safety of Nia (Friedmann, 1937). The whole
incident is badly affected the mental condition of the Owen and majorly affected his normal life
and take medication of depression.
Liability of the CPL
The UK common law is prevailing in a country to safeguard the legal right of the citizens. The
Occupier's liability Act, 1957 impose certain obligation over the occupier's to ensure the safety
of the people and visitors who comes to enjoy their theme park. According to sec. 1 of the OLA,

1957, the occupier has the duty to take reasonable care and duty to maintain the reasonable
standards for the safety of the visitors as it important to secure the legal right of all the visitors to
avoid any uncertainties and accidents. The CPL and the manager of the theme park has obliged
to provide all the safety equipment to their visitors so that the spreading of fire could be easily
avoided. It is a case of complete negligence on the part of the occupier as they are failed to avoid
the accident due to which many of them suffered serious injury and some of the visitors are still
suffering from post trauma disorders (Horsey and Rackley, 2021). In the case of Ward v. Tesco
Stores Ltd., (1976), the Court derived the principle of res ispa loquitor which means ' things
speak for itself'. The unusual incidents clearly highlights the carelessness on the part of
supermarket owner. The respondent was liable for his act of carelessness Similarly, the occupier
of the CPL will be held liable for the act of carelessness as there was negligence on their part
which caused serious incident of fire throughout the premises of the CPL.
There are essential criteria that will arise the liability over the CPL due to negligence which
includes:
 Breach of duty to take reasonable care.
 Causation
 Primary cause of injury or loss
 Consequential harm suffered by the plaintiff.
 Res ispa loquitor.
Therefore, the liability over the CPL is raised due to breach of duty towards the visitors.
Primary and Secondary Victim
Primary victim is a person who actually suffers the physical injury due to defendant's action.
It may psychiatric injury to person because of fear of personal harm. Secondary victim are those
who witnesses the injury and death of the primary victim and badly affected from sudden and
unexpected shock (Tyler and Weber, 1982). The primary and secondary victim generally have a
close relationship of love and affection as observed in the case of Nia and Owen.
Here, the primary victim is Nia whereas secondary victim is Owen.
Provisions in relation to Psychiatric illness : The UK legislation has provided the guidance to
give effect, causes and provisions in regards to psychiatric illness that was arise ion the case of
Nia and Owen. It is mainly arise due to the physical injury suffered by the plaintiff. In the case of
Page v. Smith [1996] AC 155, the law in relation to liability for negligently inflicted psychiatric

illness was discovered. The Court further established the provision in relation to psychiatric
illness as it is the mental damage, personal disorder and depression that plaintiff has been
suffered to the sudden act of fear (McKelvey, 1936). This Act entitled the plaintiff to claim
damages for the respondent arose from the reasonable fear of injury .
There are two general provisions for recovery from psychiatric illness includes:
 A recognisable psychiatric illness
 Test of reasonable foreseeability
However, the plaintiff are entitled to recover damages for negligently and can make liable the
CPL for his illness and mental disorder suffered due to careless act of the CPL. In the case of
McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410, the Court held that the psychiatric illness shows the
plaintiff' s relationship with the victim as it helps to determine the test of foreseeability that the
plaintiff must surmount all the element to establish the reasonable care It is important for
plaintiff to identify the proximity of incident and loss that may caused to the act of respondent.
The rule of Zone of danger was established in the first case of Consolidated Rail Corp. v.
Gottshall , 512 U.S (1994), it limits the liability of person that are liable for the negligent act
caused physical harm to the individuals. In simple words, it is a place of actual danger of bodily
harm or physical injury.
In the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, [1992] 1 AC 310, the Court
has made distinction between the primary and secondary victim claiming for psychiatric illness.
The Court helps that the personal injury suffered by the primary victim has implicated the
secondary victim caused reasonable apprehension that such incident may cause him huge loss
that mentally depressed the Owen because of their close relation with Nia in this case.
Therefore, Nia is entitled to claim for the damages that she has suffered due to the act of
occupier and damages for the mental loss suffered by the Owen.

CONCLUSION
From this above report, it has been concluded that the UK law is vast and diversified.
The law of tort entitled the party to claim damages and compensation for the loss. The occupier's
liability Act, 1957 and 1984 deals with the authorised and unauthorised visitors who comes to
use the occupier's land. There are various incident that take place in the CPL which shows the
liability of the occupier and negligence of the owner that makes them liable for their careless act.
There UK legislation has provided various provision that allows the occupier to take reasonable
care to ensure the safety of the visitors on their land. However, many landmark judgement has
created the history in the UK legislation as it has widened the scope of the Occupier liability Act
and provides remedy to the visitors for the wrongful act.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Binchy, W., 2018. Occupiers' Liability: Recent Judicial Developments. Tort L. & Litig. Rev., 1,
p.1.
Birkinshaw, P., 2003. European public law. Cambridge University Press.
Bodenheimer, E., 2013. Jurisprudence. In Jurisprudence. Harvard University Press.
Cooke, J., 2017. Law of Tort PDF eBook. Pearson Higher Ed.
Driver, JE & Murphy, H.S., 1963. A few passages from the English law society gazette. De
Rebus, 8(7), pp.147-148.
Friedmann, W., 1937. Modern Trends in the Law of Torts. The Modern Law Review, 1(1),
pp.39-63.
Horsey, K. and Rackley, E., 2021. Casebook on Tort Law. Oxford University Press.
Kodilinye, G. and Corthésy, N., 2022. Occupiers' Liability. In Commonwealth Caribbean Tort
Law (pp. 152-167). Routledge.
Lunney, M. and Oliphant, K., 2008. Tort law: text and materials. Oxford University Press.
McKelvey, J.J., 1936. The Law School Review, 1887-1937. Harv. L. Rev., 50, p.868.
Packman, C., 2021. The English law of tort. In Architect’s Legal Handbook (pp. 21-32).
Routledge.
Tyler, T.R. and Weber, R., 1982. Support for the death penalty; instrumental response to crime,
or symbolic attitude?. Law and Society Review, pp.21-45.