Apply occupiers’ duties to lawful visitors
Identify control and permission, then assess children, skilled visitors, warnings and contractor work.
Section 4.2.1 · Occupiers' duties and statutory limits
Exam scope and assessment notes
A Level · section 4.2.1. Original educational scenarios about the law of England and Wales, checked on 14 October 2026. Model answers are formative reasoning, not advice about a real dispute, Cambridge marks or predicted grades. Read the exact statute, case and exam-year source where a rule is disputed or changes. A larger annotated authority bank, full unseen papers and specialist law-teacher review remain outstanding.
Before you begin
- Read a short source carefully and separate its rule from the facts
- Explain which element a fact supports and what is still uncertain
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
What should a legal problem answer connect?
What you will learn
- Apply the 1957 common duty and special visitor circumstances
- Explain contractor precautions, warnings, exclusions and defences
Identify control and permitted use
An occupier is someone with sufficient control, not necessarily the legal owner; Wheat illustrates that more than one occupier can exist. Under the 1957 Act the common duty is reasonable care to make visitors reasonably safe for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted. The promise is not an accident-free premises guarantee.
Children may be less careful than adults, and alluring hazards can require appropriate precautions. Expected parental supervision can be relevant in the actual setting. Skilled visitors may reasonably be expected to guard against special risks ordinarily incident to their calling where free to do so; that is not immunity for every unrelated hazard on the premises.
Test the precautions actually taken
A warning discharges the duty only where, in all the circumstances, it is enough to enable reasonable safety. A vague notice by an unguarded hazard may be inadequate. For dangerous faulty contractor work, consider reasonable entrustment, competence and such checks on proper completion as reasonably required; hiring any contractor is not automatic discharge.
Consent to a specific risk and contributory negligence can matter. A purported exclusion must face applicable UCTA/CRA scope and restrictions; special non-business recreational or educational access rules also require attention. Distinguish adequate precautions from a liability notice that merely attempts to avoid responsibility.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Does any warning automatically make a visitor reasonably safe?
Worked example
An occupier hires an unqualified contractor for specialist repair, makes no reasonable competence checks and relies only on ‘contractor responsible’. Is hiring alone enough?
Show the worked solution
- The danger arises from contractor work.
- Check reasonable entrustment and competence.
- Assess required checking and other precautions.
Answer Hiring alone does not discharge the relevant duty. The absence of reasonable competence checks undermines reliance on the contractor provision; liability and causation still need the actual circumstances.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Identify the omitted contractor precautions.
Give me a hint
Use competence and proper completion.
Compare my reasoning
- Assess reasonable entrustment.
- Check competence.
- Consider reasonable checks on work.
The occupier needs reasonable entrustment and competence assessment, plus such checks on completion as the circumstances reasonably call for. A notice naming the contractor does not replace those precautions.
Look for these in your work
- Uses entrustment
- Uses competence
- Uses appropriate checking
Independent: A skilled electrician encounters an unrelated concealed rotten floor. Does skill alone remove the duty?
Give me a hint
Special calling risks differ from unrelated hazards.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify the electrician's trade risks.
- Classify the floor hazard.
- Assess ordinary visitor precautions.
The skilled-visitor rule does not remove duties for every hazard. An unrelated concealed rotten floor needs its own reasonable-safety assessment rather than an assumption that electrical expertise protects against it.
Look for these in your work
- Uses calling
- Distinguishes hazard
- Keeps duty analysis
Application: A child is drawn to an accessible dangerous display. Explain relevant care factors without promising liability.
Give me a hint
Children may be less careful and supervision is contextual.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify age and attraction.
- Assess foreseeable access and parental supervision.
- Evaluate practical precautions and causation.
Age, attraction, expected access and realistic supervision inform reasonable precautions. Barriers or clearer protection may be relevant, but breach and causation still depend on the facts rather than the child's presence alone.
Look for these in your work
- Uses child context
- Uses supervision
- Uses precautions
Common mistakes
- Equating occupier with owner
- Calling any warning sufficient
- Treating contractors as automatic immunity
What can you explain now?
Does any warning automatically make a visitor reasonably safe?
Compare with the explanation
No
Its adequacy depends on the danger, visitor and circumstances.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Does any warning automatically make a visitor reasonably safe?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.