Identify and explain the tortious issues that might be relevant to a recent house buyer, supporting your answer with reference to relevant case law and statute.

Here are the first two paragraphs of a recently submitted essay I completed. I am happy to discuss it in full.
Occupiers’ liability is an area of tort law relating to the duty of care owed by those who occupy premises, to those who enter. Originating from common law but now covered by legislation, it deals with liability that may arise owing to damages caused whilst on premises. A recent house buyer should be aware of their duties to visitors and the consequences of ignoring such duty, along with any issues which may affect their enjoyment of the property. This essay will define what an occupier is, establish the duties owed in the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957), the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 (OLA 1984) and examine how liability is affected by case law. It will also discuss how house buyers can be affected by nuisances and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868).
To identify who owes the duty of care, it must be established who the occupier is. Whilst term is not defined within OLA 1957, it has been described as ‘any person who controls the premises (or the relevant part of the premises) to such an extent that his carelessness could lead to a visitor suffering loss’ (Bateman et al., 2013). Reviewing this definition, an occupier could be an owner of a premise, a tenant, a large contractor or a local council who have taken possession of a property. Harris v Birkenhead Corp (1976) shows that physical occupation of the premises is not necessary to owe a duty, whilst Wheat v Lacon (1996) shows occupation is not exclusive, with a manager of a premises and its owner both held liable as occupiers. The occupiers’ duty will depend on the how a person enters premises.