Implied authorization is broad, so people who would normally be direct intruders are considered licensees. For example, someone who comes to personal belongings or comes to borrow something from the land user or picks up a charity is all considered a licensee. In each of these situations, the law considers that these persons have permission to enter the country. See Indianapolis Street Railway v. Dawson, 68 N.E. 909 (Ind. 1903). A constant intruder in a limited area is given a higher standard of care than the ordinary intruder, since the law assumes that if the user of the land is aware of the constant intrusion and does nothing to stop it, the user of the land has given some kind of implied consent to the intrusion. To this end, the land user has a duty to know whether there are constant intruders on his land or not. If these four elements are present, the soil user has the duty either to warn the children of these artificial conditions or to protect them. The responsibility of residents is related to the user`s obligation to ensure that the premises are reasonably safe for people who can enter the property.
A resident is a physical or other entity (and there may be several) that has control of a piece of land, premises or structure. Occupant liability is a doctrine that was part of the common law and was associated with the obligation owed to a party when it is on the land of a second party (or an occupant). The user is sometimes the landowner, but can also be a tenant, employee or agent. Although it suggests physical occupation, «occupier» really means someone who controls the land. Resident liability is a certain type of negligence, which is damage caused by the breach of a duty of care. According to the above definition, injuries resulting from slips, trips or falls, leisure and sports activities, and falls on public or private property may result in claims against one or more residents of these places. First, with respect to obligations to persons outside the country, the land user has no duty of care with respect to natural conditions such as trees, rocks or other naturally occurring objects. This rule applies only to rural areas.
Land users in urban areas must exercise due diligence to prevent trees growing on their land from creating unreasonable risks to pedestrians on public roads. Land users enjoy a special status that limits their liability for injuries caused by conditions or activities on land. Search: «Occupant Liability» in Oxford Reference » Owners of rented properties are users of areas that they have not rented due to sinking and over which they have retained control (for example. B the common staircase in the flat building). If the rental agreement imposes on the owner the obligation to carry out repairs, the latter as a resident is jointly responsible with the tenant for the conditions of the premises. As with the ordinary intruder, the duty of warning or safety of the occupant of the land does not extend at all to natural conditions and only to artificial conditions or activities that carry a risk of death or serious bodily injury. A land user has an obligation to warn or create licensees of safe, natural or man-made conditions or activities that involve a known risk of harm to the land user and that is not obvious to a reasonable person coming to the field. The Professional Liability Act 1984 applies to «persons other than visitors». In practice, these are usually called intruders. In Robert Addie & Sons (Colliery) Ltd v Dumbreck  AC 358, Lord Dunedin defined the term «intruder» as follows: second, you must prove that the duty of care owed to you by the occupier has been breached. Investigations must be conducted into any breach that has resulted in a breach of the duty of care.
For example, it may include evidence that a spill you slipped on or another dangerous feature was present on the premises for an unreasonable period of time, or that the resident knew or should have known of a defect on the premises. The two pieces of legislation provide for different levels of protection with a higher level of protection for legitimate visitors. The Occupants` Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 impose an obligation on users and not on landowners. Whether a particular person is an occupant is a question of fact and depends on the degree of control exercised. The test applied is «professional control» and there may be more than one occupant of the same premises: a «resident» is a person who has a sufficient degree of control over the land, structure or premises. «Land, structures or premises» include places such as highways, private homes or commercial premises such as shopping malls and factories. Similarly, no obligation is due with regard to artificial conditions that go beyond what is due for natural conditions outside the country. There are two exceptions to this rule. First, the owner of an artificial condition, such as a building or fence, that borders or protrudes on adjacent land, is required to inspect and maintain those structures. Second, the owner of artificial conditions bordering a public road has a duty to protect passengers on that road from harm. Tenants and licensees will be users of the properties in which they live. Licensees usually share the status of the occupant with the owner.
As with the ordinary intruder, there is no obligation to a constant intruder whose presence in the countryside is unknown to the rural inhabitant. However, for liability to be linked, the plaintiff must prove that the user of the land was aware of the constant intruder or had reason to know about it. The standard rate for determining knowledge about the intruder is low enough that even physical evidence on land, such as a well-taken trail or garbage on the lake, is considered sufficient to incriminate the land user with knowledge. See Louisville & Nashville Railway v. Spoonamore`s Admin., 129 S.W.2d 175 (Ky. 1939). The fifth category of people who come to the country is that of «guests». .