Moulton v Poulter: CA 1930

The defendant land owner and occupier knew of the presence of the trespassing children.
Held: He was liable for injury to the trespassing child by a tree was felled negligently. The defendant had: ‘cut the last root by which the tree was supported, knowing that the tree would fall in about two minutes and that children were standing round, without giving any warning. It has been found by the County Court Judge that the defendant in so behaving was negligent, and that the injury suffered by the plaintiff was due to that negligence. The case may, I think, be compared to one in which, while blasting operations are going on and people are standing round, a man engaged in the work fires a blast without giving any previous warning. It seems to me that the man firing the blast would clearly be guilty of a breach of duty to these people even though they were trespassers, because he would have done an act which might do them an injury and would have done it without warning. In a case such as that the person who is about to do a dangerous act is under a duty to warn even trespassers.’
Scrutton LJ
[1930] 2 KB 183
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBritish 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: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.183314