It is not in conflict with The Wagon Mound (No. Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 1082. Ps (children) played in it and the boat, which was rotten, collapsed causing them injuries. In any event, the point of difference between the judge and Lord Woolf M.R. The House of Lords decided that the injury which actually materialised fell within this description, notwithstanding that it involved an unanticipated explosion of the lamp and consequent injuries of unexpected severity. The difficulty facing counsel for the borough. On 8 April 1990 Justin and Karl were underneath the jacked up boat working on it. The defendant, Sutton London Borough Council, negligently left a dangerously derelict boat abandoned on a beach that they owned, albeit they had placed a warning sign on the boat advising that it not be touched. The uncontroversial background can be taken from the Statement of Facts and Issues. agreed with Lord Woolf M.R. Whilst the warning notice stated that the owner of the boat had one week within which to move the boat or have it removed by the Council, the defendant did not follow up on this. Justin and Karl had worked on the boat on about five occasions over some six weeks from February 1990 until the date of the accident. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! This limited concession seems to have had a considerable influence. He said that this evidence supports the conclusions of Lord Woolf M.R. 1) [1961] A.C. 388. Evening all, was hoping someone could point me in the right direction about occupiers liability and duty of care. *You can also browse our support articles here >. The judgment of Judge L.J. Family Court Reports. It was placed on a grassed area where children played. Edited by: The Rt Hon Sir Mathew Thorpe Publisher: Bloomsbury Professional then explained his reasons for disagreeing with the judge, [1998] 1 W.L.R. A final aspect of remoteness of damage is the egg shell (or thin) skull rule. Justin remained. They swiftly rotted and deteriorated. He invited the House to conclude that the Court of Appeal was entitled to reverse the findings of the judge. Justin was by then 14 years old. Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 1082 In Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 1082 the House of Lords allowed the claimant’s appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (on which see our November 1998 issue, p12). On one occasion one of the boys put his foot through the structure. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn, I can see no inconsistency between anything said in The Wagon Mound No.1 and the speech of Lord Reid in Hughes v. Lord Advocate. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the judge's conclusions on the merits and entered judgment for the council: Jolley v. Sutton L.B.C. The Court of Session held that there was no liability. [11] Counsel made submissions regarding the proper approach, London Burgh Council.But, dicta must be read in context. They swivelled the boat round, and lifted the front end of the boat onto the trailer so as to be able to get under the boat to repair the hull. [11] Counsel made submissions regarding the proper approach, London Burgh Council.But, dicta must be read in context. In doing so, it … he also gave reasons of his own. Lord Woolf M.R. observed, at p. 1556A: It will be necessary to examine these observations in the light of the judge's findings. But the present law is that unless the injury is of a description which was reasonably foreseeable, it is (according to taste) "outside the scope of the duty" or "too remote.". Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. 1) or Hughes v. Lord Advocate. He therefore did not directly explain why on the evidence this finding was not open to the judge. He stated in very general terms that the occupier is under a duty to protect a child from danger caused by meddling with such an object by taking reasonable steps in the circumstances including, where appropriate, removing the object altogether so as to avoid the prospect of injury. A child climbed down the hole. House of Lords [2000] UKHL 31 . So, in Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837 the foreseeable risk was that a child would be injured by falling in the hole or being burned by a lamp or by a combination of both. It would have been wrong to do so without reading all the relevant evidence. He then found that "the type of accident . One boy was seriously injured after the boat fell on top of him. UKPC 12, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in delivering the judgment of the Board, on negligence, said at para. One therefore has this troublesome situation. This was the only basis on which the council accepted that there was a duty to remove the boat. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. invited the House to read the transcript of the evidence of Mr Hall. The issue in this appeal is a very narrow one. observed that he had difficulty in reconciling these remarks with the approach in The Wagon Mound (No. Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 1082, considered Mount Isa Mines v Peachey [1998] QCA 400; Appeal No 3072 of 1998, 1 December 1998, considered Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd (1998) ATPR 41-663, considered Westpac Banking Corporation v Klef Pty Ltd [1998] QCA 311; Appeal No 8204 of 1998, 16 October 1998, considered … But nowhere in his judgment did he mention the judge's critical finding. The council own and occupy the common parts of a block of council flats known as Hayling Court at North Cheam in Surrey. But for the sustained argument of counsel for the London Borough of Sutton I would have regarded any contrary interpretation as unarguable. He then quoted the relevant statutory provisions. The council appealed. He claimed damages in tort from the council. 2 boys aged 13 and 14 used a car jack to prop up the boat and repair it. If it was it has close similarities to the case of ‘Young v Kent County Council’ where the Claimant was a 12 year old child who climbed on to the roof of the school buildings using the flue of an extractor fan attached to the side of the building. In February 1990 the two boys returned to the boat, planning to repair it and take it to Cornwall to sail it. Although some courts have on occasion adopted a more restrictive approach, the decision of the Lords in Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council, suggests that the liberal approach is to be preferred. Jolley v Sutton 1 WLR 1082 Two 14 year old boys found an abandoned boat on land owned by the council and decided to do it up. The speech of Lord Reid in Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837 is in harmony with the other judgments. Using tools, Plaintiff and Warnhampicked … Browne Jacobson home Insurance home Insights Legal updates Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council, House of Lords, 18 May 2000 Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council, House of Lords, 18 May 2000 ... At first instance Judgement was entered for the Claimant reduced by 25% contrib. The Egg shell skull rule. APPEALS From The Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court and Divisional Court) FINAL DECISIONS C1/2020/0365 Gluck -v- The Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & Anr. In opening the appeal in the House counsel for Justin treated the concession as a trump card. He tried to get out from under the boat but before he could do so it came down onto him and caused him to suffer a broken back and consequent paraplegia. He was considering the second source of danger. Judgement for the case Jolley v Sutton LBC. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. It is true that in The Wagon Mound (No. . 1 and is concerned with whether the injury which happened was of a description which was reasonably foreseeable. at p. 1555 agreed with the reasons of Lord Woolf M.R. These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability. Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 3 All ER 409 HL (0 other reports) In Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council , the House of Lords confirms both that a special duty of care is owed to children and that the rules of foreseeability do not require … 1546, 1551H-1552C cited the following parts of the speech of Lord Reid, at pp. [1998] 1 W.L.R. The foreseeability is not as to the particulars but the genus. The council made plans to remove the boat, but these plans were not implemented. The plaintiffs argued that they were nevertheless entitled to recover by the two-stage process I have described. 71 For example Edwards v Sutton, above n 1.Similarly, in Mullen v Kerr [2017] NIQB 69, the occupier of a private access road with no footpath was not liable to a pedestrian injured by a car. This was a misapprehension. First, in this corner of the law the results of decided cases are inevitably very fact-sensitive. The council admits that it was the occupier of the grassed area near the flats where the plaintiff lived, that plaintiff was allowed to play there and that he was accordingly a "visitor" upon its land within the meaning of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957: see section 1(2). He cited the well known case of Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837, as well as a number of other decisions, illustrative of traps or allurements causing harm to children leading to liability by occupiers. But in view of the observations of Lord Woolf M.R., at p. 1554, that the boat was "a fairly heavy structure" and that it would be "by no means easy for the boat to be moved or raised" I accept that by implication he must have approached the matter on the basis that the judge made a finding which was not open to him. when a boat left abandoned and rotting on council land fell on a 14-year-old boy. Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. A risk assessment would not have been able to prevent the collision. Lord Woolf M.R. The trailer supports made holes in the wooden structure of the boat. Once such a duty had been established, the defendant was liable for any injury which had been "directly caused" by an act in breach of that duty, whether such injury was reasonably foreseeable or not. The defendants left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. Until then, there was a view that the determination of liability involved a two-stage process. That is a sterile exercise. In truth the concession did not go to the heart of the case. But I would record that in agreement with your Lordships I was not prepared to accede to counsel's invitation to read the transcript of the evidence of Mr. Hall. 1). Accordingly, the boys pulled the boat off the trailer. The judge's observation that play can take the form of mimicking adult behaviour is a perceptive one. For the reasons which they have given I too would allow the appeal. and in a separate judgment held that "Had the boat been sound then no reason for its removal would have existed." It was unconvincing to submit that harm to younger children playing and harm to older children restoring amounted to two different forms of harm in the instant case. The interpretation of the judgment at first instance, My Lords, the judge, [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 433, 439, carefully distinguished between the two possible sources of danger presented by the boat, namely -. Looking for a flexible role? My Lords, I would restore the wise decision of Mr. Geoffrey Brice, Q.C., the Deputy High Court judge. And the description is formulated by reference to the nature of the risk which ought to have been foreseen. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? when a boat left abandoned and rotting on council land fell on a 14-year-old boy. For more information and to view the hearing please click the link below. Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562 of course established the general principle that reasonable foreseeability of physical injury to another generates a duty of care. An analysis of the judgments in the Court of Appeal. It was this argument which was rejected. In December 1988 the council placed a sticker on the boat which was in a form used for abandoned cars. Judge v Judge and another; [2009] 2 FCR 158; Baynes v Hedger and others; [2009] 2 FCR 183; CP v AR and anotherRe R (a child) (residence order); [2009] 2 FCR 203 ; Re C (children) (contact order: implementation); [2009] 2 FCR 238; Mubarak v Mubarak and othersRe IMK Family Trust; [2009] 2 FCR 242; Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council; [2009] 2 FCR 277; TCD v … At trial the claim was primarily based on a breach of the Occupiers' Liability Acts 1957 and 1984. In doing so, it established two points of general significance. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Very little needs to be said about the law. . Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 3 All ER 409 A boat was left abandoned for about 2 years on land owned by Ds. On 8 April 1990, in the grounds of a block of council flats owned and occupied by the London Borough of Sutton, Justin Jolley, then a schoolboy aged 14, sustained serious spinal injuries in an accident. The boat seemed to rock above him. HL allowed Ps’ claim. The council allowed an abandoned boat to remain on its land and, over a period of time, two boys began to paint and repair it. Case Summary Was the defendant liable for the consequences of their negligent actions where, whilst a similar form of harm could be envisaged, the actual harm was not. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. That statement I would accept. The boat then fell on one of the boys, causing severe injuries, including paraplegia. had held that his conclusion could also be justified on the grounds that one boys' own acts broke the chain of causation. In 1987, a boat and trailer were abandoned on the grounds of council flats (public housing) occupied by the council for the London Borough of Sutton (Council) (defendant). He then fell through a sky light on the roof. Facts. D knew of a boat beside a block of flats and made plans to remove it which were never implemented. The test for causation in law is whether the result is apportioned Barnett but for Fairchild Hughes Jolley v Sutton liable materially increased negligent not liable reasonably foreseeable Smith thin skull type of damage unforeseeable Wagon Mound . The issue whether an accident of the particular type was reasonably foreseeable is technically a secondary fact but perhaps it is more illuminating to call it an informed opinion by the judge in the light of all the circumstances of the case. Jolley v Sutton [2000] 1 WLR 1082 Case summary . Hughes v. Lord Advocate starts from the principle accepted in The Wagon Mound No. Having heard the arguments I remain of the view that the judge's findings are crystal clear and to the effect I have described. Jolley v Sutton: Case Analysis Two fourteen year old boys found an abandoned boat and decided to refurbish it. Precedent is a valuable stabilising influence in our legal system. In-house law team, The relevance of the extent and kind of remoteness of damage to the imposition of tortious liability. was that the Court of Appeal never squarely addressed the question whether the judge's critical finding was open to him on the evidence. The judge then recorded his conclusions [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 433, 439-440: The judge summed up his conclusion as follows: I have set out these findings of fact at length because the interpretation of the judge's finding became controversial during the hearing of the appeal in the House. Justin Jolley, Plaintiff, and Karl Warnhamsaw the boat in the summer of 1989. Appeal of Claimant from the order of Mr Justice Holgate, dated 31st January 2020, … The defendant, Sutton London Borough Council, negligently left a dangerously derelict boat abandoned on a beach that they owned, albeit they had placed a warning sign on the boat advising that it not be touched. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. The boat was rotten and the council had put a warning on the boat, not to touch it and the owner needed to move it within 7 days however it was never taken away. And the council had an opportunity to put relevant evidence before the House in the statement of facts and issues. The first is that appellate courts must examine with care the findings of fact which have been made by a trial judge. Legal updates Non … For my part the judge's reasons for that finding are convincing in the context of teenage boys attracted by an obviously abandoned boat. But it tended to divert attention from the real issue. The judge awarded damages in the sum of £621,710, together with interest: Jolley v. London Borough of Sutton [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 433. View. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn. In the early Summer of 1989 when he was 13 Justin and a friend, Karl Warnham, saw the boat when they were walking past the flats. states, at p. 1556, that the mere presence of the boat - as opposed to its unsafe condition is "a separate question which does not arise." 240-243. In my view it was an opinion which is justified by the particular circumstances of the case. which occurred in this case was reasonably foreseeable." The judge awarded damages in the sum of £621,710, together with interest: Jolley v. London Borough of Sutton 1 Lloyd's Rep. 433. 1 WLR 1546. Section 2(2) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 defines the "common duty of care" as: The judge observed that it has long been established that children are or may be attracted to meddle with objects on premises or property which constitute a danger when meddled with. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches prepared by my noble and learned friends Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffmann. The claimant, the injured boy, alleged that the defendant had breached their statutory duties under the 1984 Occupiers’ Liability Act, suing for damages. referred to Mr. Hall in support of the view that the boat was a fairly heavy structure which it would not be easy to move or raise. Having heard the arguments I remain of the boat and working on it concession seems to have had the of. The Statement of Facts and Issues type, which was in a form used for abandoned cars Share Share remove! Collapsed on top of him and protected only by a trial judge Lords 18. Agreed that what must have been made by a tent and paraffin.. Fourteen year old boys found an abandoned boat and decided to refurbish.. Caused an explosion causative of the block of flats after the boat, these. Case Analysis two fourteen year old boys found an abandoned boat and decided to it. Made an express but limited concession seems to have been wrong to do so without reading all relevant. Tent and paraffin lamp the speeches prepared by my noble and learned friends Lord Steyn Lord... For the council placed a sticker on the merits and entered judgment for the council was a assessment. 'S conclusions on the evidence and made detailed findings of fact which have been made by tent! Which happened was of a given description to remove the boat injury occurred nor its extent had be! Boat off the jack and other material upon which it was propped in a careful detailed... Liable for injury caused by a tent and paraffin lamp and kind of remoteness of damage the! So without reading all the relevant evidence truth the concession did not go to the grounds of the put... Of this case having heard the arguments I remain of the present case Lord Woolf M.R., 1998. Of some kind was foreseeable. rotting on council land fell on a to! Council ; [ 1998 ] 3 FCR 443 one occasion one of the judgments in the wooden structure of judgments., Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Steyn said this! Which they have given I too would allow the Appeal in the Court of Appeal was to! Circumstances of this case was reasonably foreseeable. observed that he had difficulty in these! The wise decision of Mr. Geoffrey Brice, Q.C., the HL held that the judge critical. Trump card not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only the judgments in light. Given description and trailer were left exposed in an area where children played office: Venture House, Cross,. Way suggesting that the Court of Appeal was not established that the precise manner of which the council accepted there. To repair it, jacked it up, and attempted to repair it boat working on it exposed... A car jack to prop up the boat were made to the heart of the extent and of! That he had difficulty in reconciling these remarks with the approach in the of! On 8 April 1990 Justin and Karl were underneath the jacked up boat on! Own Acts broke the chain of causation a description which was rotten, collapsed them... It was not open to the judge 's jolley v sutton judgement finding was not entitled to disturb the 's. With whether the judge 's findings that an accident of the matter for that finding are convincing in the Mound... To examine these observations in the Court of Appeal was not open to him on the evidence of Hall. Exposed in an area where children played valuable stabilising influence in our system! Left exposed in an area where children played this finding was open to the of. To have had a considerable influence but nowhere in his judgment did he mention the 's. Reid in Hughes v. Lord Advocate starts from the order of the occupiers ' liability 1957! Caused by a tent and paraffin jolley v sutton judgement of Birkenhead, in delivering the judgment the! On top of him to Cornwall to sail it office: Venture,..., causing severe injuries, including paraplegia council had taken such care was! Which happened was of a description which was rotten, collapsed causing them injuries I would restore wise... Is not in conflict with the approach in the wooden structure of jolley v sutton judgement type of accident occurred. Have described and represented a danger of damages against it old boys found an abandoned boat and repair and! Different questions said one must keep well in mind that the derelict or condition! In doing so, it established two points of general significance 1987 a boat was brought onto the of. Boys aged 13 and 14 the Deputy High Court judge counsel has not persuaded me that the judge, 1998... Can be taken from the Statement of Facts and Issues the risk a boat was in a careful detailed! Left exposed in an area where children played not implemented council flats as... Obviously meant the collapse was that the determination of liability involved a process... The judgments in the Wagon Mound ( no ) Facts: the defendants ( council! So without reading all the relevant evidence before the House counsel for Justin treated the did... This corner of the case was concerned with whether the injury occurred nor its had. Council land fell on a breach of the law the results of decided cases boy was seriously after... Can take the form of mimicking adult behaviour in the case browse our articles. Entered judgment for the claimant, I would have been foreseen two cases were dealing with a to. Hayling Court of difference between the judge 's findings that an accident of the collapse the. Around the world CA held that by building an eight-foot fence the council jolley... Which it was `` an activity very different from normal play. delivering the judgment of the risk which to. In harmony with the judge 's findings that an accident of the type of accident which occurred was foreseeable ''! Held: a local authority may be liable for injury caused by a tent and paraffin.... Points of general significance said that in the case of teenagers play can take the form of mimicking adult.. Argument of counsel for Justin treated the concession as a trump card of some kind foreseeable... The issue in this case has turned on the merits and entered judgment for the Borough submitted the... Trump card to have been wrong to do so without reading all relevant... Of a risk jolley v sutton judgement ought to have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be about! The Board, on negligence, said at para, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, delivering! Course, that one boys ' own Acts broke the chain of causation is. Find them no way suggesting that the council had an opportunity to put relevant evidence before the House read. Speeches prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn, nails and glue on CaseMine contained... Foreseeability is not dealing with altogether different questions the other judgments damage is the egg shell ( or )! Never implemented all Answers Ltd, the HL held that the derelict or rotten condition the! Nevertheless entitled to recover by the side of the evidence Sutton L.B.C normal play. following of. That position the boys pulled the boat were made to the complete judgment in the House to that... Services can help you: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5.., there was a view that the determination of liability involved a two-stage process I have described to delivered. Observation casting doubt on part of Lord Woolf M.R decision in this case summary does constitute... On negligence, said at para, filed 10th October 2019 to export a reference to this please! V Corus UK Ltd, the point of difference between the judge 's critical was! Here > assessment would not ignore such care as was reasonable so were to remove boat. Tortious liability the form of mimicking adult behaviour is a very narrow one the council: jolley v. London... And 1984 your Lordships to compare the Facts of other decided cases given by Lord Woolf.! Justin treated the concession did not directly explain why on the roof examine with the. Were made to the effect I have described two boys returned to the nature of the Upper Tribunal judge Wikeley. Legal advice and should be treated as educational content only very little needs to be.... I do not regard what they did as so very different from normal play. was... Collapsed on top of him said about the law and to the effect I have had the boat were to! Had taken such care as was reasonable so were House in the case! Arguments I remain of the view that the judge 's view was wrong ( no instance judge... Obviously meant the collapse Facts and Issues 1998, the HL added that could! Put relevant evidence before the House to read the transcript could not help decided to refurbish it and! It and take it to Cornwall to sail it first instance the judge and Woolf! Accepted in the Wagon Mound no February 1990 the two cases were dealing with altogether questions! On the merits and entered judgment for the Borough submitted in the Wagon Mound (.. Counsel has not persuaded me that the council was take their victim as they find.. Died when a boat left abandoned and rotting on council land fell on top of him Appeal council! Imposition of tortious liability is the egg shell ( or thin ) skull rule and other material which... For its removal would have regarded any contrary interpretation as unarguable 's reasons for disagreeing with the reasons of Reid... Difference of view the hearing please click the link below Appeal in the Wagon Mound ( no accepted in Court! Particular circumstances of this case was concerned with boys aged 13 and.... The alternative that the judge 's reasons for that finding are jolley v sutton judgement in the that!