However, the duty owed to trespassers and recreational users is much lower than that owed to visitors. It is a great annoyance to many farmers that they owe trespassers a duty of care at all. This is controversial, as there is a common mind-set among landowners in this country that if a person trespasses on their land, anything that happens to them is their own problem. The occupier has a duty to maintain such a structure. The classic example here would be a play area provided on a farm for visiting children. However, there is a higher standard imposed on an occupier where they have provided a structure for recreational users on the premises. The occupier owes a duty not to deliberately injure the recreational user or trespasser and not to act with reckless disregard for his or her safety. The duty of care owed to the recreational user and to the trespasser is the same. This includes hill walkers and people crossing farm land to access national monuments.Ī trespasser is any person on the premises who is not a visitor or a recreational user. The duty of care owed to a visitor is not controversial, most people have no issue with ensuring that people who they allow on their land, are safe from harm and injury.Ī recreational user is someone who is on a premises, with or without the occupier’s permission, without charge, for recreational purposes. A visitor must still take reasonable care for their own safety. The occupier has to take reasonable care that the visitor does not suffer harm due to the state of the premises.Īll of the individual circumstances must be taken into account here. The occupier owes what is known as the common duty of care to a visitor on his or her land.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |