Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 - Act

Act

The Act first identifies the occupier. Section 1(2) identifies the occupier as the person occupying or in control of the premises, not necessarily the owner, with the underlying premise being that the person liable should be the person most likely to have been able to prevent the harm; the person occupying the premises, not necessarily the owner of those premises. The Act does not define occupier, but provides that the person to be treated as the occupier is the person who would be considered an occupier under common law rules. In Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd 1 All ER 582 it was established that more than one person can be an occupier. In Harris v Birkenhead Corporation it was held that it was possible to be an occupier without having physical possession of the house if the "occupier" has legal control of the property. Section 1(3) extends the standards set by the Act not only to land but to any fixed or movable structure, which includes ships and aircraft.

Read more about this topic:  Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

Famous quotes containing the word act:

    ... whatever men do or know or experience can make sense only to the extent that it can be spoken about. There may be truths beyond speech, and they may be of great relevance to man in the singular, that is, to man in so far as he is not a political being, whatever else he may be. Men in the plural, that is, men in so far as they live and move and act in this world, can experience meaningfulness only because they can talk with and make sense to each other and to themselves.
    Hannah Arendt (1906–1975)

    Color is my day-long obsession, joy and torment. To such an extent indeed that one day, finding myself at the deathbed of a woman who had been and still was very dear to me, I caught myself in the act of focusing on her temples and automatically analyzing the succession of appropriately graded colors which death was imposing on her motionless face.
    Claude Monet (1840–1926)

    The ambivalence of writing is such that it can be considered both an act and an interpretive process that follows after an act with which it cannot coincide. As such, it both affirms and denies its own nature.
    Paul De Man (1919–1983)