As a leading specialist bird control company we are often asked ‘who is liable’ if a visitor to your premises is caused injury due to a slip on pigeon guano.
Lately there has been a number of successful claims made by members of the public and, in most cases, these claims have been made by visitors who are ‘invited’ to the premises; This ranges from someone who may be invited on business to an office complex, a booking at a restaurant to a night out at a nightclub; The invitation to attend the premises is accepted and an agreement is deemed to have been made.
In Law, this person has a protection under the ‘Occupiers’ liability act 1957′ and this is clearly defines in section 2 of the Act where the Occupier has a ‘common duty of care’, to all visitors. I have outlined this section of the act below for your perusal and highlighted the section that applies.
Basically, in short, if it is found that the Occupier has neglected the ‘common duty of care’ then the short answer is YES you can be hit with a Personal Injury Claim
Extent of occupier’s ordinary duty
(1)An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the “common duty of care”, to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise.
(2)The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.
(3)The circumstances relevant for the present purpose include the degree of care, and of want of care, which would ordinarily be looked for in such a visitor, so that (for example) in proper cases—
(a)an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults; and
(b)an occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so.
(4)In determining whether the occupier of premises has discharged the common duty of care to a visitor, regard is to be had to all the circumstances, so that (for example)—
(a)where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe; and
(b)where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair by an independent contractor employed by the occupier, the occupier is not to be treated without more as answerable for the danger if in all the circumstances he had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor and had taken such steps (if any) as he reasonably ought in order to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent and that the work had been properly done.
(5)The common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by the visitor (the question whether a risk was so accepted to be decided on the same principles as in other cases in which one person owes a duty of care to another).
(6)For the purposes of this section, persons who enter premises for any purpose in the exercise of a right conferred by law are to be treated as permitted by the occupier to be there for that purpose, whether they in fact have his permission or not.