Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd

There may be more than one occupier of premises, and anyone with a sufficient degree of control over premises is an occupier.

Citation

[1966] AC 552

Court

House of Lords

Year

1966

Subject

Tort Law

Topic

Occupiers' liability

Facts

Lacon, a brewery, owned a public house, which was managed by Mr Richardson under a service agreement. Mr Richardson and his wife lived in the private part of the premises, and were allowed to take in paying guests. Mr Wheat, a guest, fell down the back staircase in the private part and was killed. The staircase was steep, the handrail did not reach the bottom, and there was no light. His widow sued the brewery.

Legal principle

The House of Lords held that the brewery was an occupier of the private part of the premises, together with the Richardsons, because it had retained a sufficient degree of control. Lord Denning said that wherever a person has a sufficient degree of control over premises to put him under a duty of care towards those who come lawfully on to the premises, he is an occupier, and that there may be two or more occupiers. However, the brewery was not in breach of its duty, because the staircase was not unreasonably dangerous for a visitor using ordinary care, and the accident was caused by someone having removed the light bulb.

Related cases on occupiers' liability

• British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
• Bunker v Charles Brand & Son Ltd [1969] 2 QB 480
• Cole v Davis-Gilbert [2007] EWCA Civ 396
• Darby v National Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 189
• Edwards v Railway Executive [1952] AC 737
• Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44
• Haseldine v CA Daw & Son Ltd [1941] 2 KB 343
• Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 39, [2006] 1 WLR 953

Back to all law cases

This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.