According to the discussion there is a common duty of care6 on the occupier to ensure his premises are reasonably safe at all times.7 If any danger exists, it is the duty of the Occupier to post signs warning of the danger and this can satisfy the duty of care expected8. In the case of the Park, due signs were posted and therefore, visitors to the park were duly warned they were using the facilities at their own risk. Occupier liability will be limited by the element of foreseability of accidents. In the case of Cunningham v Reading9 loose tiles on the terrace were the cause of police injury, for which the Occupier was held liable, because this was an instance where injuries were foreseeable and chances of occurrence were also higher, therefore the Occupant was held liable. This may also hold good in the case of the Park, because three aspects must be noted the signs warning of the risk were corroded and unreadable and therefore practically non existent. Exclusion clauses, waiving liability, must be clearly communicated - if they are printed on the back of a ticket or communicated indistinctly, they will not be valid10. the element of foreseeability of accident was high due to the nature of the facilities. Moreover, the Park may also face difficulties on the issue of maintenance of the slides, since they collapsed with the weight of only two children.