A Level Law Learner resource 4 Occupiers' Liability ... · Web viewLearner resource 4: Occupiers’ Liability – landmark case This is an extract from an important case. The extra

Learner resource 4: Occupiers’ Liability – landmark caseThis is an extract from an important case. The extra detail will provide a deeper understanding of the law and how it fits in with other cases in this topic.

The activityRead the following case summary and answer the questions that follow:

JOLLEY v SUTTON LBC (2000)

Facts:

The defendants (Sutton Council) owned a block of flats. In 1987 a boat was brought onto the grounds of the flats and abandoned on an area where children played. The residents of the flats complained to the council and in 1988 the council placed a sticker on the boat which stated that it would be removed within seven days unless claimed by its owner. In 1989, the claimant – a 14 year-old boy - and a friend saw the boat when they were walking past the flats and in 1990 the two boys returned to the boat, planning to repair it and take it to Cornwall to sail it. Whilst the claimant was working on the boat, it collapsed and he suffered a broken back rendering him paralysed.

Held:

The House of Lords allowed the appeal – it was not necessary for the Council to foresee the exact nature of the accident. They had foreseen that children might play with the boat and suffer injury which is what happened albeit that the claimant suffered more severe injuries than expected.

LORD HOFFMANN:

‘… [I]t has been repeatedly said in cases about children that their ingenuity in finding unexpected ways of doing mischief to themselves and others should never be underestimated … I think that the judge's broad description of the risk as being that children would ‘meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury’ was the correct one to adopt on the facts of this case. The actual injury fell within that description and I would therefore allow the appeal.’

Evaluation point:

The Council agreed that they should have moved the boat as it was foreseeable that children might play on it but they argued that in this case since the claimant was injured repairing the boat they were not liable. Injury occurring in this way was not foreseeable. This means that the definition of foreseeability from the case of Wagon Mound (1961) is relevant in this case. The type of damage (injury) was foreseeable and therefore, it did not matter how the injury occurred.

Version 1 1 © OCR 2017Law of Torts

Cross-reference to other important cases:

Wagon Mound (1961) – the type of damage caused must be reasonably foreseeable.

Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955) – Parents may be responsible for allowing their children to enter an occupier’s land.

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922) – The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 states that an occupier should expect children to be less careful than adults.

1. What area(s) of law is the case of Jolley concerned with?

2. Who won this case?

3. Why did the council believe they were not liable?

4. What is the test for remoteness of damage?

5. Why does the law expect children to be less careful?

Version 1 2 © OCR 2017Law of Torts

6. What is an allurement?

7. Why did the court refuse to allow the claim in the case of Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)?

8. Is it fair that children should be treated differently than adults?

Extension task:

Research the other cases cross referenced to in the text (Wagon Mound (1961), Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955) and Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)) and using the template used for Jolley, produce your own key cases.

Version 1 3 © OCR 2017Law of Torts