The court was asked as to the duty of a land owner to a trespasser.
Held: At least in respect of his own activities an occupier owed the trespasser duty to take care not to injure a trespasser whose presence was foreseeable or reasonably to be anticipated having regard to all the circumstances. Therefore it favoured a duty of exercising reasonable care to guard against infliction of reasonably foreseeable injury. Lord Denning said: ‘Whichever it is, so long as it is not wanton interference, if the rescuer is killed or injured in the attempt, he can recover damages from the one whose fault has been the cause of it.’
Pearson LJ said: ‘Such persons [occupiers] are entitled to farm lands, operate quarries and factories, run express trains at full speed through stations, fell trees and fire shots without regard to the mere general possibility that there might happen to be in the vicinity a trespasser who might be injured. Such persons do not have to cease or restrict their activities in view of that possibility, which is too remote to be taken into account and could not fairly be allowed to curtail their freedom of action.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR, Pearson LJ
Citations:
[1963] 2 All ER 860, [1963] 3 WLR 374, [1963] 2 QB 650
Jurisdiction:
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.
Personal Injury
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.183032