Occupier's Liability in Trinidad and Tobago: The Duty Owed to Visitors and Trespassers
Under the law of Trinidad and Tobago, an occupier of land or premises owes a duty of care to persons who come onto those premises, and the standard of that duty depends on whether the entrant is an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser. Occupier's liability in T&T is governed entirely by the common law — Parliament has not enacted an Occupiers' Liability Act, so the position is fixed by inherited English authority and locally decided cases such as Aaron Jairam v Trincan Oil Limited.
What is Occupier's Liability?
Occupier's liability is the branch of the law of tort that governs the duty owed by a person in control of land or premises ("the occupier") to persons who come onto those premises and suffer injury or damage there. It is a specialised application of the law of negligence, with its own categories, its own duty standards, and its own body of case law.
The tort answers three questions in sequence:
- Who is the occupier? — the person or entity legally responsible for the safety of the premises.
- What is the status of the entrant? — invitee, licensee, or trespasser.
- What duty was owed, and was it breached? — the standard of care varies with the category of entrant.
In practice, occupier's liability claims in T&T arise most often from supermarket slip-and-falls, accidents at petrol service stations, falls in shopping malls, injuries at hotels and guesthouses, and accidents on construction sites where members of the public stray onto land.
Is There an Occupiers' Liability Act in Trinidad and Tobago?
No. Trinidad and Tobago has not enacted any Occupiers' Liability Act, and there is no statute that codifies the duty owed by occupiers of land in this jurisdiction. The common law applies in full, as developed by the English courts before the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (UK) and Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (UK), and as applied locally by the Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago.
This is a structurally important point. In England and Wales, the 1957 Act abolished the common law distinction between invitees and licensees and replaced it with a single category of "lawful visitor" owed a "common duty of care." Trinidad and Tobago has done no such thing. The pre-1957 common law tripartite classification — invitee, licensee, and trespasser — remains live law in T&T. Practitioners and the courts continue to apply Indermaur v Dames (1866) LR 1 CP 274 to invitees, the lower "licensee" duty to mere licensees, and the duty articulated in British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877 to trespassers.
In practice, however, T&T courts have increasingly adopted the modern formulation expressed in section 2(2) of the UK 1957 Act — that the occupier must take "such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable" to see that the visitor will be "reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted to be there" — as a sound articulation of the common law duty owed to lawful visitors. The High Court in Aaron Jairam v Trincan Oil Limited expressly adopted that formulation as good law in Trinidad and Tobago.
Who Counts as an "Occupier" in Trinidad and Tobago?
An occupier is any person or entity who has a sufficient degree of control over premises to ensure the safety of those entering, and who ought to appreciate that a failure to take care may cause injury to entrants. The leading definition comes from the House of Lords decision in Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552, where Lord Denning held that an occupier need not have exclusive possession or even physical occupation; any person with a sufficient degree of control qualifies, and there can be more than one occupier of the same premises at the same time.
Applying Wheat v Lacon in T&T, the following persons are commonly held to be occupiers:
- The freehold owner in possession of the property.
- The tenant of leased premises during the lease.
- A licensee or franchisee managing premises for the owner — for example, the operator of a service station forecourt held under a dealer agreement.
- An independent contractor carrying out work on premises, with respect to the part of the site under their immediate control.
- The employer in respect of a workplace they control, even if they do not own the building.
Where there are multiple occupiers, the duty of each is proportional to the extent of that occupier's control over the premises and over the activities being carried on there. This is squarely the position adopted in Aaron Jairam v Trincan Oil Limited, where the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago applied Wheat v Lacon and held that the dealer-operator and Trincan Oil could each be occupiers of different aspects of the service station, with duties proportional to their respective spheres of control.
What Duty Does an Occupier Owe to a Lawful Visitor?
At common law, lawful visitors fall into two sub-categories: invitees and licensees. Each is owed a duty, but the historical formulation of the duty is slightly different. Modern T&T cases tend to collapse the two and apply a unified "reasonable care" standard, but the older distinction is still pleaded and is still occasionally outcome-determinative.
The Invitee
An invitee is a person who enters the premises on a matter of common business or material interest with the occupier — in short, a person whose presence benefits the occupier in some commercial or material sense. The classical statement is from Willes J in Indermaur v Dames (1866) LR 1 CP 274:
"[An invitee], using reasonable care on his part for his own safety, is entitled to expect that the occupier shall on his part use reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual danger, which he knows or ought to know."
Examples of invitees include:
- A customer in a supermarket, hardware store, or shopping mall.
- A patron at a restaurant, bar, or hotel.
- A patient at a private medical clinic.
- A motorist purchasing fuel at a service station.
- A delivery driver dropping goods at a commercial premises.
The occupier's duty to an invitee is to take reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual dangers of which the occupier knows or ought to know. The two key concepts are "unusual" (something the invitee would not ordinarily expect in those premises) and "knows or ought to know" (actual or constructive knowledge).
The Licensee
A licensee is a person who enters the premises with the occupier's permission, but for the licensee's own purposes rather than for any business or material interest of the occupier. Social guests, family members visiting, and persons taking a short-cut across land with permission are licensees.
The historical duty to a licensee is lower: the occupier must warn of concealed dangers (traps) that the occupier actually knows about. The occupier is not, in the strict historical formulation, under a duty to inspect for unknown dangers as they would for an invitee.
The Modern Reasonable-Care Standard
In modern T&T practice, the courts increasingly apply a single unified standard to all lawful visitors: the occupier must take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are permitted to be there. This is the formulation adopted in Aaron Jairam v Trincan Oil Limited and reflects the practical convergence between the historical invitee and licensee duties.
What Duty is Owed to a Trespasser?
A trespasser is a person who enters premises without the occupier's invitation or permission, express or implied, and whose presence is either unknown to the occupier or, if known, is objected to.
The Old Rule: Addie v Dumbreck
Before 1972, the occupier owed a trespasser no duty of care at all — only a duty not to injure the trespasser intentionally or by reckless disregard. This was the rule in Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358. The harshness of that rule, particularly when applied to child trespassers injured by railway lines, electrical apparatus, and unfenced open shafts, drove its eventual reform.
The Duty of Common Humanity: British Railways Board v Herrington
The modern position derives from British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877, in which a six-year-old boy was severely burned after straying through a defective fence onto an electrified railway line. The House of Lords departed from Addie v Dumbreck and held that an occupier owes a trespasser a duty of common humanity: where the occupier knows, or has reason to know, that trespassers are likely to come onto the land and may encounter a concealed and serious danger, the occupier must take such steps as common sense and common humanity dictate — within reasonable and practicable limits — to warn of the danger or otherwise reduce or avert it.
The duty of common humanity is lower and less onerous than the duty owed to lawful visitors. The occupier is not obliged to inspect or to make the premises safe for trespassers in the same way as for invitees. But where the occupier:
- knows that trespassers are likely to enter (e.g. because a fence is broken and children are known to use the land as a short-cut), and
- knows or ought to know of a serious danger on the premises that is concealed or not obvious,
then the occupier must take reasonable practical steps — repair the fence, post a warning sign, fence off the danger — to discharge the duty of common humanity. Herrington remains the governing authority in Trinidad and Tobago and is regularly cited in trespasser cases before the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago.
How Do the Three Categories Compare?
| Category | Definition | Standard of Duty | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invitee | Enters on a matter of common business or material interest with the occupier | Reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual dangers the occupier knows or ought to know of | Indermaur v Dames (1866) LR 1 CP 274 |
| Licensee | Enters with permission but for their own purposes (social guests, etc.) | Warn of concealed dangers (traps) that the occupier actually knows about | Common law |
| Trespasser | Enters without invitation or permission | Duty of common humanity — take such steps as common sense and common humanity dictate where danger is known and trespass anticipated | British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877 |
In modern T&T practice, the line between invitee and licensee is often blurred and the courts apply a unified "reasonable care" standard to all lawful visitors. The line between lawful visitor and trespasser, by contrast, remains sharp and outcome-determinative.
What the Law Says in Trinidad and Tobago
No Codifying Statute
There is no Occupiers' Liability Act in Trinidad and Tobago. The duty owed by occupiers of land is fixed entirely by the common law as inherited from England and as applied by the Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago. Adjacent statutes — notably the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Chapter 88:08 — impose distinct duties on employers in respect of workplaces, but they do not displace the common law of occupier's liability for non-employee entrants.
The Controlling Authorities
| Case | Citation | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Indermaur v Dames | (1866) LR 1 CP 274 | Duty to an invitee: reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual dangers known or ought to be known |
| Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd | [1966] AC 552 | Definition of "occupier" — sufficient degree of control; multiple occupiers possible |
| British Railways Board v Herrington | [1972] AC 877 | Duty of common humanity to trespassers — replaces Addie v Dumbreck |
| Aaron Jairam v Trincan Oil Limited | CV2010-04153 | T&T High Court: applies Wheat v Lacon and modern reasonable-care standard to occupiers in T&T |
| Harripersad v Mini Max Ltd | T&T HC | Slip-and-fall in supermarket: occupier liable to invitee for unusual danger (water on terrazzo floor from leaking air-conditioning unit) |
The Limitation Period
A claim in occupier's liability for personal injury is subject to the limitation period in the Limitation of Personal Injuries Actions Act, Chapter 7:09: the action must be commenced within four years of the date on which the cause of action accrued, or within four years of the date of knowledge if later. A claim for damage to property is governed by the general six-year limitation period in tort.
What Are the Common Defences to an Occupier's Liability Claim?
In practice, the defences most commonly raised in T&T occupier's liability claims are:
-
No breach of duty. The occupier took all reasonable steps in the circumstances — for example, the floor had been mopped, a "wet floor" sign had been deployed, and the cleaning frequency was reasonable for the level of footfall. This is by far the most common defence.
-
Contributory negligence. The claimant failed to take reasonable care for their own safety — for example, they were running, distracted by a mobile phone, or ignored a posted warning. Contributory negligence does not defeat the claim but reduces damages proportionate to the claimant's fault.
-
Volenti non fit injuria (consent). The claimant willingly accepted the risk of the danger — rare in occupier's liability but possible where, for example, the claimant was a participant in an inherently risky activity carried out on the premises with full knowledge of the risk.
-
Warning given. A clear, prominent warning of the danger may discharge the occupier's duty to a lawful visitor — but only if the warning was, in all the circumstances, sufficient to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe.
-
The danger arose from the act of an independent contractor. Where the danger was created by an independent contractor whom the occupier had reasonably engaged and supervised, the occupier may not be liable for the contractor's negligence — though the occupier remains liable for failing to check the work where checking was reasonably required.
-
Trespasser status. The defendant may show that the claimant was a trespasser rather than a lawful visitor, reducing the duty owed to the lower Herrington standard.
What Should an Occupier Do to Manage Risk?
In practice, an occupier of commercial premises in T&T should, at minimum:
- Carry out regular inspections of public areas — floor surfaces, stairways, parking lots, exits — and document them.
- Maintain a cleaning and inspection log showing the frequency and outcome of inspections, so that, if a claim is brought, the occupier can prove a reasonable system was in place.
- Use prompt warning signage — wet-floor signs, hazard cones, barricades — whenever a transient danger is created (cleaning, spillage, repair work).
- Repair defects promptly — broken tiles, loose handrails, damaged fences, leaking air-conditioning units. The Harripersad v Mini Max case is a textbook illustration: the occupier knew the unit leaked, used inadequate newspaper to absorb the water, and was held liable when a customer fell.
- Train staff to identify, report, and respond to hazards.
- Maintain public-liability insurance appropriate to the level of public footfall on the premises.
- Fence and warn in respect of any serious concealed danger on the premises, particularly where children may foreseeably enter — this is the practical lesson of British Railways Board v Herrington.
A documented, consistent system of inspection, cleaning, and warning is the single most important practical defence to an occupier's liability claim. In our experience advising commercial clients in Trinidad and Tobago, claims often fail not because the danger was unforeseeable, but because the occupier could not produce records showing what was actually being done to manage the foreseeable risk.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Trinidad and Tobago have an Occupiers' Liability Act?
No. Unlike the United Kingdom, Ontario, British Columbia, and several other Commonwealth jurisdictions, Trinidad and Tobago has not enacted any Occupiers' Liability Act. The duty owed by occupiers of land in T&T is governed entirely by the common law, applying the inherited English authorities — Indermaur v Dames, Wheat v Lacon, and British Railways Board v Herrington — together with the locally decided cases such as Aaron Jairam v Trincan Oil Limited and Harripersad v Mini Max Ltd. There is no statutory duty of care; the standard is the common law standard of reasonable care.
Can I sue a supermarket if I slip and fall on a wet floor in Trinidad?
Yes, provided you can prove that you were a lawful visitor (which a paying customer plainly is), that the wet floor constituted an unusual danger, and that the supermarket knew or ought to have known of the danger and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or warn of it. Harripersad v Mini Max Ltd is the classic T&T precedent: a customer slipped on water leaking from an air-conditioning unit onto a terrazzo floor in a San Fernando supermarket, and the occupier was held liable. You must commence proceedings within four years under the Limitation of Personal Injuries Actions Act, Chapter 7:09.
What duty do I owe to a trespasser on my property in T&T?
You owe a trespasser a duty of common humanity, as established in British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877. This is a lower duty than the duty owed to lawful visitors. You are not required to inspect your land or make it safe in the same way as for an invitee. But if you know, or have reason to know, that trespassers are likely to enter your land and may encounter a concealed and serious danger, you must take such reasonable practical steps — fencing, warning signs, removing the hazard — as common sense and common humanity require. The duty is heightened where the foreseeable trespasser is a child.
What is the difference between an invitee and a licensee?
An invitee is a person who enters premises on a matter of common business or material interest with the occupier — typically a customer, patron, contractor, or delivery driver. A licensee is a person who enters with permission but for their own purposes, such as a social guest. Historically, the duty owed to an invitee (reasonable care against unusual dangers known or ought to be known) was higher than the duty owed to a licensee (warn of known concealed traps). Modern T&T practice applies a unified reasonable-care standard to all lawful visitors, but the historical distinction is still pleaded and remains technically part of the common law.
Can more than one person be the "occupier" of the same premises?
Yes. The House of Lords in Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552 confirmed that there can be more than one occupier of the same premises at the same time, and that each occupier owes a duty of care proportionate to the extent of their control. In a service-station case like Aaron Jairam v Trincan Oil Limited, both the dealer-operator and the parent oil company can be occupiers of different aspects of the same forecourt. In a shopping-mall case, the mall owner, the individual store tenant, and a cleaning contractor may each be occupiers with concurrent duties.
How long do I have to bring a claim for an injury suffered on someone else's premises?
A claim for personal injury caused by breach of the occupier's duty of care must be commenced within four years of the date on which the cause of action accrued — the date of the injury — or, if the claimant did not have the relevant knowledge at that date, within four years of the date of knowledge. This limit is set by the Limitation of Personal Injuries Actions Act, Chapter 7:09. A claim for damage to property is subject to the general six-year tort limitation period.
Will a "Wet Floor" sign protect a supermarket from liability?
A clear and prominent warning sign placed in good time may discharge the occupier's duty to a lawful visitor — but only if it is sufficient, in all the circumstances, to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe. A sign placed too late, in the wrong location, or obscured by stock will not be enough. The court will examine the lighting, the visibility of the sign, the speed at which the danger arose, and whether reasonable supplementary measures (cones, barricades, cleaning) were also taken. In Harripersad v Mini Max, the occupier had attempted to manage a known leak with newspaper on the floor — a measure the court found wholly inadequate. The lesson is that warnings must be matched by reasonable physical precautions.
Am I liable if a child trespasses onto my land and is injured?
Potentially yes. Under British Railways Board v Herrington, the duty of common humanity applies with particular force to child trespassers, because children are foreseeably less able to appreciate or avoid danger. If you know, or ought to know, that children are entering or are likely to enter your land — for example, because there is a derelict structure, an unfenced pool, or a broken boundary fence near a school — and there is a concealed serious danger on the property, you must take reasonable steps to fence, warn, or remove the hazard. Failure to do so exposes you to liability when an injury occurs. The presence of an "allurement" — something attractive to children — strengthens the case against the occupier.
About the Author
Written by Martin George, Attorney-at-Law. Martin George is the founder and principal attorney of Martin George & Company, with more than 35 years of active legal practice in the courts of Trinidad and Tobago. He is a former Commissioner on the Law Reform Commission of Trinidad and Tobago and a member of the Prime Minister's Constitutional Committee for Internal Self-Government for Tobago. This article is published for general information and public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, contact Martin George & Company.
Last reviewed: April 2026