Study Notes
Key Case | Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd (1996) | Occupiers Liability – Occupier
- Level:
- A-Level, BTEC National
- Board:
- AQA, Edexcel, OCR, IB, Eduqas, WJEC
Last updated 23 Aug 2022
In this case it was held that the word occupier denotes ‘a person who had a sufficient degree of control over premises to put him under a duty of care towards those who came lawfully on to the premises’, additionally there may be more than one occupier.
CASE SUMMARY
Key Case: Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd (1996)
Claimant: Mr Wheat – a man renting a room in a pub
Defendant: Brewery - Lacon & Co
Facts: The claimant was renting a room in a pub, when he tried to descend the stairs, he fell and was killed, there was no light on the staircase and the handrail did not extend for the length of the staircase. The room was rented by the manager and pub was owned by the brewery, Lacon & Co.
Outcome: Not Liable
Legal principle: The word occupier denotes ‘a person who had a sufficient degree of control over premises to put him under a duty of care towards those who came lawfully on to the premises’. An occupier does not have to have exclusive control or occupation, and there may be more than one occupier.