Introduction The law related to the occupiers liability was developed in order to focus on the premises which are

defective and owners do not have any kind of liability for these property and only occupiers can be held liable for such properties. The main objective of the law was making liable to the occupier in order to differentiate this law from the negligence law. Hence whenever there is any kind of injury to a person entering the house the only liability for the accident lies with the occupier of the house not with the owner of the house. In modern law there were two different laws formed for the Occupiers liability which were as given below and were governed by the different parliamentary acts as well: Occupiers liability act 1984 which focus on the responsibility of non visitors or trespassers Occupiers liability act 957 which focus on the responsibility of the lawful visitors

There are few terms which need to be defined before describing the law of occupier for the liability to be kept on. Some of the major terminologies used are given as below: Occupier Occupier can be called as the person or collection of person who are having the present right of occupation for the said property and can be held liable for any harm caused to other person on the property occupied by them. Concept of occupier is very vast and it can be owner, more than owner or more than one person having the right of possession of the property. It is not necessary that an occupier should be individual it can be a person, any authority, a society or it can be some company as well. Premises Liability act of 1957 defines the premises as the place which covers the movable as well as non movable assets related to the property. Fixed premises are the assets which are fixed in nature such as the building, house and hotel etc while non movable premise includes the assets which are not fixed in nature such as the chair, table and other movable fixed assets lying in the premise. Control on premises

It has already been established that the present occupier of the property can only be held liable for any kind of injury caused to other person entering the premises. Hence the law gives responsibility to the person who is having present control for the property. But in cases where there is multiple no. of occupier in such cases treatment of occupier is done into different way which is as given below: In case of Lacon vs Wheat, 1966, premises were owned by Lacon & Co and there was a manager appointed for the premises whose name was Mr Richardson. First floor of the premises was used by Mr Richardson for their private use while ground floor of the premise was a public pub. Mr Wheat came to his place for their private profit and while he was making an attempt to go down he fell from stairs and died. There were two negligences made by the occupier as there was no light in the stairs and also railing in the stairs also falls short of length due to which person fall down. Hence the jury made liable to Mr Richardson for the death of Mr Wheat not to the owner of the house. It was also established from the case that it is not necessary to have full control of the house for liability to arise but some portion of house occupied by a person can also make liability for that person. Occupiers liability in the construction area In the various industries applicability of the Act 1984 and Act 1957 there are different set of applicability. In construction industry there is more applicability for the act of 1984 as the industry should think carefully about the claim which can come against them under these acts of liability. As we already seen that some of the claim may not be applicable to the negligence law where it cant be established that the construction owner had made a negligence for the work but it can be easily established that the liability lies with the occupier of the construction area. The liabilities related to the property at construction area can be held with the various different persons since there are many entities working on the construction area such as the project manager, site engineer, contractor and subcontractor etc. Hence before deciding about the claim a deep examination is required in order to assess the claim on different entities and then only liability for any kind of harm can be established. Level of care needed

As per the section 2 of the act 1957 it is the moral duty of the occupier of the property to take proper action about the safety and security about the property which they have occupied. Hence common duty of the occupier of the house is that it is his duty to keep safe to the visitors who are coming to the premises with his invitation. Here duty is for the safety of the visitors visiting the premises not the duty of the premise as well. There are few case studies which determine the duty of the occupier for the premises which is as given below: In case named Jeavons Vs Field, 1965, an employee was cutting timber with the saw machine and then switched off the power but power in saw was still there due to which there was current present in the machine and employee got injured. In such situation though some part of the claim was taken by the employee himself due to his person negligence while major part of the claim would go to the project manager or the site manager who should have ensured the employee safety at the workplace. Hence the case shows that the occupier of the property was responsible for the harm caused at the premises. In other case named magnet Bowling vs AMF international, 1968, a contract was given to the AMF international to deliver timbers which were left outside to deliver them in their premises. But due to rain all the timbers got spoiled and the claim for the spoiled timber came on the project manager handling the work area as it was his duty to make timber delivery company aware of the potential risk from the rain. Lawful visitor Act 957 of the liability related to the visitors who are lawful or invited by the occupier of the premises not attached with the unlawful visitors of the premises. It is simple to determine whether a person entering the premises is having lawful entry or not. But the law of Act 1957 also covers the responsibility for the person which is having the public law to enter into premises such as the policeman and fireman as well. Also person who is expected to come to premises is covered under law of Act 1957 as occupier did not invite them verbally but they are expected to come to the premises such as the postman and milkman etc.

There are few defence points supporting the occupier for any kind of harm which has been caused in the premises which are as given below: Consent of the visitor: If the visitor is ready to accept the risk which is present in entering the premises then it becomes the obligation of the visitor himself and does not lies with occupier. Contributory negligence: If some negligence is contributed by the visitor himself then it would not be the liability of the occupier as visitor himself is involved in the negligence Exclusion of liability: Occupier of premises can limit their liability through a contract but the same is decided through contract terms and conditions. Conclusion Hence the two acts i.e. Act 1957 and act 1984 varies in the degree of care which each occupier need to have against their visitor into the premises. Act of 1984 is highly complex in nature as it favour more to the visitor and establishes the occupier which also decides the liability for the occupier in case of the multiple occupiers of the property. A small degree of control owned by a person is sufficient to hold him liable for the harm done on the work site.