Apply the limited duty to non-visitors
Use the 1984 Act's danger, vicinity and protection conditions instead of a blanket trespasser exclusion.
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 1984 duty conditions and personal-injury scope
- Explain warnings, willing acceptance and the limits of exclusion arguments
Establish the statutory conditions
Trespassing does not mean no duty can ever exist. For risks within the 1984 Act, the occupier must know or have reasonable grounds to believe the danger exists, know or reasonably believe the non-visitor is or may be near it, and be reasonably expected in all the circumstances to offer some protection. The duty, where it arises, is reasonable care against injury from the danger.
The statutory risk concerns the state of the premises or things done or omitted there, not every freely chosen risky activity. Tomlinson distinguishes an obvious activity risk from a dangerous premises condition and considers personal autonomy. Children and others without genuine informed choice can raise different circumstances.
Use narrower scope and discharge
The 1984 Act's duty concerns injury to the person and does not extend to property loss under section 1(8). Reasonable steps to warn or discourage risk can discharge a duty where appropriate, and willingly accepted risks are addressed by section 1(6). Contributory negligence can affect recovery.
There is no equivalent broad express contracting-out provision matching the 1957 Act; the scope of attempts to exclude the 1984 duty is legally disputed and must not be presented as settled by a ‘no liability’ sign. Analyse a genuine warning or discouragement and any applicable statutory controls rather than promise universal exclusion.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Does the 1984 Act's section 1 duty extend to loss of a trespasser's property?
Worked example
An occupier knows of a concealed pit and of repeated child trespass nearby. A student says trespass automatically defeats every personal-injury duty. Evaluate.
Show the worked solution
- Use knowledge of the danger.
- Use knowledge of likely vicinity.
- Assess reasonable expectation of protection.
Answer Trespass alone does not defeat the 1984 Act inquiry. The known concealed pit and likely nearby children support examining all three duty conditions and reasonable precautions; the outcome still requires the complete facts and causal proof.
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 three duty questions for the concealed pit.
Give me a hint
Danger, likely presence and reasonable protection.
Compare my reasoning
- Check knowledge of danger.
- Check knowledge of likely vicinity.
- Assess reasonable expectation of protection.
The inquiry uses the occupier's danger knowledge, likely presence near it and whether protection is reasonably expected. Child trespass is relevant context, not automatic liability or an automatic defence.
Look for these in your work
- Uses danger
- Uses vicinity
- Uses reasonable protection
Independent: A trespasser claims only a broken bag under the 1984 Act. What scope limit matters?
Give me a hint
Personal injury and property loss differ.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify property-only loss.
- Apply section 1(8).
- Consider any other genuine legal basis separately.
The section 1 statutory duty does not extend to that property-only loss. Another genuine cause of action would need its own basis; the 1984 Act should not be enlarged by treating the bag as personal injury.
Look for these in your work
- Classifies loss
- Uses scope
- Separates other routes
Application: An adult freely chooses an obvious dangerous activity on otherwise ordinary premises. What distinction does Tomlinson illustrate?
Give me a hint
Risk may arise from the choice of activity.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify the source of danger.
- Distinguish premises condition and activity.
- Assess informed choice and proportional precautions.
The analysis should examine whether the risk comes from a dangerous premises condition or the adult's freely chosen activity. Tomlinson supports attention to autonomy and proportionality, without turning every obvious risk into immunity for every occupier.
Look for these in your work
- Identifies source
- Distinguishes risks
- Uses qualified policy
Common mistakes
- Saying trespassers never receive protection
- Including property loss in the 1984 duty
- Treating every activity as dangerous premises
What can you explain now?
Does the 1984 Act's section 1 duty extend to loss of a trespasser's property?
Compare with the explanation
No
Section 1(8) excludes property loss from this statutory duty's scope.
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 the 1984 Act's section 1 duty extend to loss of a trespasser's property?
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.