Whether a trespasser who was injured could recover or not depends at common law upon whether notice had been given him of the presence of those dangers on the defendant’s land. Burrough J said: ‘The Plaintiff was only a trespasser: if the Defendant had been present, he would not have been authorised even in taking him into custody, and no man can do indirectly that which he is forbidden to do directly.’
Burrough J, Best CJ
(1828) 4 Bing 628, [1828] EngR 580, (1828) 130 ER 911
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.180981 br>