- A visitor’s freely chosen risk does not necessarily negate an occupier’s liability.
- A valuable reminder that all cases on occupiers’ liability depend on their own facts.
Can an adult visitor, who exposes himself to an obvious risk on an occupier’s premises, complain when the danger materialises? A passage in a well-known case could, if taken out of context, lead to the belief that this question will invariably be answered in the negative. A welcome new decision of the Court of Appeal has shown, however, that this is not necessarily so. The decision also highlights the fact-sensitivity of occupiers’ liability cases, and the importance of the defence of contributory negligence. In White Lion Hotel v James [2021] EWCA Civ 31, [2021] All ER (D) 61 (Jan) the claimant’s husband fell to his death while sitting on the sill of an open window at the defendants’ hotel. His wife sued the owners of the hotel for breach of the ‘common duty of care’ in s 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
