Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd

An occupier for the purposes of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 is a person with a sufficient degree of control over premises to owe a duty of care. Exclusive possession is unnecessary. More than one person may be an occupier, and the content of each person’s duty depends on the control exercised and the circumstances.

The common duty requires reasonable care to make a visitor reasonably safe, not a guarantee against every accident. There is no breach where the alleged danger was not shown to make the premises unsafe for a visitor taking reasonable care, and the absence of lighting was not attributable to the occupier.

Mrs Wheat sued the brewery company, the manager of a public house and his wife after her husband, a paying summer guest, fell down an unlit back staircase and died. The claim was brought under the Fatal Accidents Acts 1846–1908 and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934.

Winn J held that the brewery company was an occupier of the relevant part of the premises but found no breach of duty. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mrs Wheat’s appeal by a majority, holding that the company was not in occupation of the private upper part. The central questions for the House were whether the company was nevertheless an occupier and visitor-host under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, and whether it had breached the common duty of care.

1. The House unanimously dismissed the appeal. The brewery company was an occupier of the upper part of the public house and owed Mr Wheat the common duty of care, but no breach of that duty was established.

2. Occupation and control. Lord Dilhorne held that the manager occupied the whole public house as the company’s servant, rather than on his own account. The company had therefore not divested itself of occupation and control. Lord Denning held that an occupier is a person with a sufficient degree of control to make a failure to take care capable of injuring lawful entrants. Exclusive occupation is unnecessary and several persons may simultaneously be occupiers. Lord Morris, Lord Pearce and Lord Pearson likewise concluded that there was dual occupation by the company and the Richardsons.

3. Scope of the duty. The House held that summer guests entered with the company’s permission and were its visitors under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. The statutory common duty required reasonable care for their safety. Where premises have more than one occupier, the acts or omissions amounting to breach may differ because each occupier’s relevant control, knowledge and responsibility may differ.

4. No breach. Lord Dilhorne concluded that the evidence did not establish the probable cause of the fall and that the staircase was not dangerous for a person taking proper care in darkness. The company could not reasonably be expected to anticipate that a visitor would treat the end of the handrail as the end of the stairs. Lord Denning, Lord Morris, Lord Pearce and Lord Pearson also found no evidence that the short handrail made the staircase unsafe or that the company was responsible for the missing bulb. The accident was not shown to have resulted from negligent provision or maintenance of the staircase or lighting.

• House of Lords: appeal dismissed unanimously. The House upheld the dismissal, but held that the brewery company was an occupier: [1966] AC 552.
• Court of Appeal: appeal from Winn J dismissed by majority (Harman and Diplock LJJ; Sellers LJ dissenting). The majority held that the brewery company was not in occupation of the private part of the premises.
• Norwich Assizes (Winn J): judgment for all defendants. Winn J held that the brewery company was an occupier but had not breached its duty.