Set out together with your reasoning how any of the parties might be able to bring a claim under occupiers' liability.

SET OUT TOGETHER WITH YOUR REASONING HOW ANY OF THE PARTIES MIGHT BE ABLE TO BRING A CLAIM UNDER OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY AND COMPARISONS BETWEEN OCCUPIERS’ACTS OF 1957 AND 1984
By (Name):
The Name of the Class (Course):
Professor (Tutor):
The Name of the School (University):
The City and State where it is located:
Date:
SET OUT TOGETHER WITH YOUR REASONING HOW ANY OF THE PARTIES MIGHT BE ABLE TO BRING A CLAIM UNDER OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY AND COMPARISONS BETWEEN OCCUPIERS’ACTS OF 1957 AND 1984
Section One: Set out together with your reasoning how any parties might be able to bring a claim under occupier’s liability
The liability of an occupier of any premise or land is anchored on the fundamental condition that the relevant party will undertake activities within such a premise or land. The occupant is defined as the occupant who has control over the said land, premise, or property. In other words, occupiers' liability refers to the duty owed by landowners to parties who come onto their land. The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 confers an occupier a universal duty of care to all his visitors’ including those who are invited or have permission to enter the premise or land (Kodilinye, 2014 pp.204-219). It must be noted that the duty of care may vary and this can be illustrated by the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, which allows the occupier to owe a duty of care to specific persons other than visitors, with the condition that the occupier has a reasonable ground to believe that there are dangers within the premise or land, that he or she needs to undertake some measures to ensure the protection of others. The occupiers’ Acts are crucial because it aids in the establishment of the extent of the duty of care amongst to occupiers with intent of ensuring that other parties do not suffer from consequential harms that relate to occupiers’ premises, activities, processes, or property.
The duty of care as an obligation bestowed on land or premise owners not only limited to those who come to visit but also extend its armpit of control to include landowners transferring duty of care to others, which makes the term ‘occupier’ came in handy. The term occupier is subject to in-depth interpretation since the physical occupancy is not a mandatory requirement for liability to arise. Occupiers’ liability shows similarities to negligent claims, which makes it possible to have an issue of remoteness apply amongst the two. The condition regarding physical occupancy and remoteness can be secured when omissions in relationships lead to a threat to visitors or other parties’ safety. Occupiers' liability is a form of negligence, which means that arising liability, must be accompanied by a duty of care and breach of duty, causing damage due to breach of duty.
The occupier, in this case, is Essar Oil Ltd and its adverse consequences following the fire, explosion, and leakage, led to unintended suffering to Mr. and Mrs. Pool whose oil seeped into, Ruddan Ducks Society whose small nature reserve got burned, Famer Giles which got oil flooding and Mr. Park, whose luxury yacht was surrounded by oil. These cases can be evaluated based on the legal connotation of occupiers’ Acts, and this will facilitate the provision of reasonable advice to aggrieved parties. The current societies are often characterized by intricate interdependence of industrial activity, hence, possessing the potential to cause local and international borders. Courts have often shown liability for injurious acts must lie with the party who causes or created the risk for damage under the armpit of the common law of R ylands v. Fletcher (Costello, R.Á., 2014 pp.134-143).
These four cases against Essar Oil can be pursued under the Occupiers’ Act. Essar Oil owes a duty of care to Mr. and Mrs. Pool, Ruddan Ducks Society, Famer Giles, and Mr. Park. Essar Oil ought to accept occupiers' liability because it owns the oil premises, which can be a defective, risk, and dangerous to other parties, including those who visit, those who trespass, and those in remote places like Mr.Parker in this case.
In order to understand the occupancy liability related to these cases of Mr. and Mrs. Pool, Ruddan Ducks Society, Famer Giles, and Mr. Park against Essar Oil Ltd, we must establish the scope of occupiers’ ‘liability. First, an occupier of the land of land, for example, Essar Oil Ltd, owes a duty of care to visitors and trespassers regarding dangers and risks that a given state of premise poses, or possible omissions, a...