Section 3, The Law Reform (Law short title

(1) An occupier of premises owes the same duty, thecommon duty of care ", to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his dutyto any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise. (2) The common duty of care is a duty to take such careas in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see thatthe visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for thepurposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupierto be there. (3) The circumstances relevant for the present purposesinclude the degree of care, and of want of care, which wouldordinarily be looked for in such a visitor, so that (for example)in proper cases (a) an occupier must be prepared for children to be lesscareful than adults; and (b) an occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against anyspecial risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as theoccupier leaves him free to do so. (4) In determining whether the occupier of premises hasdischarged the common duty of care to a visitor, regard is to be had to al] the circumstances, so that (for example) No. 33 Law Reform (Law of Tort) 1961 (a) where damage is causcd to a visitor by a danger o! which he had been warned by the occupier, the warn1ng IS not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances Il was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe: and (6) where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction maintenance or repair by an independent contractor employed by the occupicr, the occupier is not to be treated without more as answerable for the danger if in all the circumstances he had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor and had taken such steps (if any) as he reasonably ought in order to satisfy himself that the contractor was Competent and that the work had been properly done. (3) The common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willinglyaccepted as his by the visitor (the question whether a risk wasSO accepted to be decided on the same principles as in othercases in which one person owes a duty of care to another). (6) For the purposes of this section, persons who enterpremises for any purpose in the exercise of a right conferred bylaw are to be treated as permitted by the occupier to be there forthat purpose, whether they in fact have his permission or not.