Wheat v Lacon [1966] AC 552

House of Lords

Basic Facts: Mr. Wheat fell down badly lit stairs at a pub and died. His widow sued both the pub owners (L) and the licensees (R) for negligence.

Issue: How much control must a person have to be considered an “occupier” of premises?

Held: The case was dismissed. The court held that the Ds retained occupation and control of the inn and that the Claimant and her husband had been visitors to the public house and were therefore owed a duty of care by the defendants. However, the stairs were deemed not dangerous to those using it whilst taking the appropriate care.

• Viscount Dilhorne (dismissing the appeal):

• Control determines occupancy. R retained sufficient control to be considered an occupier.

• No breach found as the injury was not reasonably foreseeable from the lack of lighting alone.

• Lord Denning (dismissing the appeal):

• The concept of an occupier includes those who have significant control over the premises.

• All parties with control owe a duty of care. In this case, no breach occurred.