The defendants were demolishing some houses, behind which was an open space on which children were known to play. A child wandered onto the site and a wall fell causing injury.
Held: Although the plaintiff was a trespasser, the presence of children on the land was so likely that they were within the class of people to whom a duty of care was owed. A building in course of demolition is an allurement. Precautions should have been taken, and the defendant was liable.
[1954] 1 All ER 57, [1954] 1 WLR 592, 98 Sol Jo 217
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.
Negligence
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.182868