Notes on what onerous means. Whether the occupier has an onerous liability towards contractual entrants. Occupier's Liability Tort.

1. Meaning of Onerous and Contractual Entrants in Brief (Tort of Occupier’s Liability)
“Onerous”
According to Oxford dictionary, onerous means involving heavy obligations in legal aspect.1
Therefore,
the onerous duty in regards to the occupier is its heavy obligations to fulfil his duty of care.
Contractual entrants
Contractual entrants are those who enter premises either for the purpose of occupying or for a
particular activity. Hence, the standard duty of care of the occupier is to ensure a reasonably safe
premises for that purpose and it is higher towards contractual entrants than invitees. The duty of care is
explained in MacLenon v. Segar2
, where the occupier was found liable for failing to ensure an
emergency way during a fire breakout. McCardie J said an agreement by the occupier to allow a person
to enter for agreed purposes, contains the implied warranty that the premise is safe for that purpose as
far as it can be reasonably expected. In Gillmore v. London County Council3
,the occupier was held
liable for failing to ensure that the floor was suitable for the exercise class as it was slippery, causing
the plaintiff to fall.
However,in other situations the duty of care may be questioned in terms of its weight upon the
occupier. In the case of Dunster v Hollis4
,the landlord was held liable for an injury suffered by one of
his tenants even though the plaintiff was aware of the dangerous condition of the staircase. The injury
by the usage of the common staircase shows that the responsibility of the occupier is not limited to
“unusual” dangers. Secondly, it seems that the plaintiff is not automatically disqualified by mere
knowledge of the peril. It is only evidence for contributory negligence.
The occupier also has to bear liability of dangers created by independent contractors employed
for construction, alteration or repairs of the premise. In the case of Francis v. Conkrell5
,a ticket-holder
was hurt when the grandstand collapsed due to poor workmanship by the contractor to put it up. Still,
the proprietor was held responsible although he is entirely free from personal negligence.
There is also an authority saying that responsibility attaches even if the defects were created
before the defendant occupy the premise. This is an unfair burden on occupier for the acts of persons
over whom he had no control; unless of course the defect were reasonably discoverable. There was an
argument that the plaintiff is induced to rely on the safety of the premise and that the right to recovery
should not depend on the date which the defect originated. Although it is understandable that there was
an implied warranty in regards to the safety of the premise, surely there should be a limitation in which
1 Oxford English Dictionary.(2019). Oxford University Press.
2 [1917] 2 KB 325
3 [1933] 1 KB 205
4 [1918] 2 KB 795
5 [1870] LR 5 QB 501

2. the occupier should bear responsibility towards all defects including those that were created before his
occupation?
In regards to sporting events and other entertainments, the occupier is imposed the duty to
exercise reasonable care to supervise and control the conducts of persons whose activities on the
premises are likely to be dangerous. Therefore,the occupier is obliged to care for structural conditions
of premise for ticket holder’s reception though it is less extensive for accidents due to performance
conducted in which he did not employ. In Cox v. Coulson6
, it was held that all persons connected with
performance of play should observe reasonable care to not expose the audience to unreasonable risks.
The occupier is only responsible for personal negligence.
In light of the argument above, it can be concluded that the duty of care on occupier owing to
contractualentrantsis onerous due to that it is not limited to unusual dangers,it includes dangers created
by employed independent contractors in regards to construction and dangers that were created before
his occupation. However, it is less extensive in regards to sporting events and other entertainments
where he is not liable for dangers created by the persons connected with event that are not employed by
him.
References
Oxford English Dictionary. (2019). Oxford University Press.
[1917] 2 KB 325
[1933] 1 KB 205
[1918] 2 KB 795
[1870] LR 5 QB 501
[1933] 1 KB 205
6 [1933] 1 KB 205