The Occupiers Liability Act (OLA) establishes the legal responsibility that property owners owe to people who enter their premises. In general, this legislation requires property owners to take reasonable steps to ensure their property is reasonably safe for visitors.
This duty applies to a wide range of properties, including private homes, rental properties, commercial buildings, and many public and municipal spaces. When someone is injured due to a hazardous condition on a property, the OLA forms the foundation of a dangerous premises case.
Are There Exceptions to the Occupiers Liability Act?
The OLA does not impose unlimited responsibility. Not every injury is the result of negligence, and property owners are not expected to eliminate every possible risk. Rather, the Act includes several important limitations and exceptions that can reduce or, in some cases, eliminate liability.
Willingly Assuming Risks
In some situations, a property owner’s duty of care is significantly limited because the injured person knowingly accepted the risk involved. Property owners generally have no duty with respect to risks that a person has willingly assumed. This means that if a visitor understands the nature of the risk and chooses to proceed anyway, the property owner may not be responsible for resulting injuries. This commonly arises in situations where the risks are obvious or foreseeable to the activity or environment.
Importantly, this does not give occupiers free rein to act dangerously. Property owners must still refrain from intentionally creating hazards or acting with reckless disregard for the safety of others. They cannot set traps or deliberately expose people to hidden dangers. However, they are not required to protect visitors from risks the visitors knowingly and willingly accept.
Waivers, Warning Signs, and Disclaimers
Property owners sometimes attempt to limit their liability through waivers, warning signs, or disclaimers. While these tools can be relevant, they do not automatically eliminate responsibility.
Property owners cannot simply post a sign and avoid liability. For a waiver or warning to be effective, it must be clear, reasonable, and properly communicated. Visitors must be given a real opportunity to see, understand, and agree to the warning or waiver before encountering the risk.
Poorly placed signs, unclear language, or warnings provided after a person has already entered a hazardous area may not be sufficient. Each situation is assessed based on whether reasonable steps were taken to bring the warning or waiver to the visitor’s attention.
Trespassers and Criminal Activity
The duty of care owed to trespassers is more limited, especially where criminal activity is involved. If a person is trespassing while committing, or intending to commit, a criminal act, the law treats them as having willingly assumed the risks associated with entering the property. In these circumstances, the property owner’s duty of care is significantly reduced.
Property owners are still prohibited from intentionally causing harm or creating dangerous conditions meant to injure trespassers. While the duty owed is lower than that owed to lawful visitors, property owners cannot act recklessly or deliberately create hazards designed to cause injury.
Rural Agricultural and Recreational Properties
The OLA recognizes that not all properties can be made safe to the same standard. Property owners in rural or undeveloped areas are subject to different expectations.
This exception often applies to farms, agricultural land, forested or wilderness areas, recreational trails, and private roads in rural settings. These environments naturally contain uneven ground, wildlife, changing weather conditions, and other hazards that cannot realistically be eliminated.
Because of these inherent risks, occupiers of rural or recreational properties do not have the same obligations as owners of urban commercial or residential buildings. Visitors to these properties are generally expected to accept a higher level of risk.
Public Highways, Roadways, and Government Decision-Making
Government bodies, including municipalities, can be considered property owners under the Occupiers Liability Act. However, the Act does not apply to every government-owned property or activity.
Public highways and major roadways used primarily for vehicle traffic are generally governed by other legal frameworks. These laws recognize that governments must balance safety with cost, resources, and broader public priorities.
Governments are typically protected from liability when injuries arise from high-level policy decisions, such as:
- Budget allocation choices
- Decisions about which roads or sidewalks to upgrade
- City-wide snow removal standards
- Infrastructure planning and design
Some roads, such as those used for forestry, industrial, or resource access, may also fall outside the scope of the Act. Governments can still be liable under the Occupiers Liability Act for operational issues, such as failures in maintenance, inspection, or repair. Each case depends on the nature of the property and the actions involved.
Injuries Caused by Independent Contractors
In some cases, a property owner may not be responsible for injuries caused by the negligence of an independent contractor.
If a property owner properly hires and supervises a qualified contractor, such as a snow removal or maintenance company, they may be able to avoid liability under the Act for the contractor’s negligence.
However, delegating work to another individual or group does not automatically shield property owners from liability or negligence. A property owner may still be held liable for third-party contractors if they:
- Hired an unqualified or unlicensed contractor
- Failed to monitor unsafe work
- Ignored obvious hazards created by the contractor
Employers and Workplace Injuries
The OLA does not apply to workplace injuries. Injuries that occur in the course of employment are governed by employment law and workers’ compensation legislation. These systems are designed to address workplace accidents and limit the ability to pursue civil claims against employers.
Have Your Claim Evaluated by Stephens & Holman
If you were injured on someone else’s property and your circumstances do not fall within one of the recognized limitations or exceptions under the Occupiers Liability Act, you may have a valid claim for damages. Stephens & Holman assists individuals across BC in assessing dangerous premises claims, helping determine whether an occupier may be legally responsible and what options may be available. Contact us today to learn more or to schedule an appointment.