The claimant was injured swimming in a lake in a park. Warning signs clearly indicated that the lake was dangerous for swimming.
Held: The authority were liable. They knew that the lake was attractive to swimmers, and that the signs were ineffective, but had not yet carried out landscaping works to deter swimmers. Under the Act they could be liable to trespassers. The court drew a distinction between approaching 1(3) as a duty owed to a claimant as a member of a class, and 1(4) which focussed on the individual claimant. What was reasonably required could not be discovered without first deciding that it was reasonable to offer protection to that person.
Judges:
Lords Justices Ward, Sedley and Longmore
Citations:
Gazette 23-May-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 309
Links:
Statutes:
Occupiers Liability Act 1984 1
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Leave given – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and Cheshire County Council CA 18-Jun-2001
The appellant sought leave to appeal against an order dismissing his claim for damages. He had been injured swimming in water on the defendant’s land. The defendant asserted that they had no duty of care to those who came onto the land and imperiled . .
Cited by:
Doubted – Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited CA 27-Feb-2003
The claimant had decided to go for a midnight swim, but was injured diving and hitting a submerged bed. The landowner appealed a finding that it was 25% liable. The claimant asserted that the defendant knew that swimmers were common.
Held: The . .
Appeal from – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Land
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.168088
