Surprisingly, the answer is that the person exercising the right to roam will not be a ‘visitor’ under Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Instead, the basic duty owed is that to a ‘trespasser’ (under OLA 1984). However, even that duty is subject to certain restrictions since no duty is owed in respect of a risk resulting from a natural feature of the landscape, and nor is there any liability for someone who suffers injuries whilst using a wall, fence or gate (unless they were using a gate or style properly). Essentially, the duty owed to the rambler can be lower than that owed to the trespasser. Moreover, OLA 1984 has been amended (by a new s1A) so that in determining an occupier’s liability, the court has to take into account that the right to roam should not be seen as imposing an undue burden on occupiers. Other relevant factors include maintaining the character of the countryside, and any relevant Countryside Agency guidance. In short, it may be better to be a trespasser than a rambler! See note in [2004] SJ 1079. © Practical Lawyer