British Railways Board v Herrington
The House of Lords used the Practice Statement to hold that occupiers owe a duty of common humanity to child trespassers.
Facts
Six year old Thomas Herrington was badly burned when he climbed through a broken fence onto an electrified railway line near a park where children played. The British Railways Board knew that the fence was broken and that children had been seen on the line, but had not repaired it. Under Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358, an occupier owed no duty of care to trespassers, except not to injure them deliberately or recklessly.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the Board was liable, departing from Addie v Dumbreck under the 1966 Practice Statement. Social conditions had changed since 1929, and the earlier rule was out of step with the law of negligence as it had developed. An occupier who knows that trespassers, especially children, are likely to come onto land where there is a danger owes them a duty of common humanity to take reasonable steps to warn them or keep them out. The law was later put on a statutory footing in the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.
Related cases on judicial precedent
- Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580
- Austin v Southwark London Borough Council [2010] UKSC 28, [2011] 1 AC 355
- Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027
- Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910
- Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264
- Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349
- Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9, [2016] AC 908
- Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
