Cole v Davis-Gilbert
An occupier of a village green was not liable for an injury caused by a hole left by a maypole, because the hole had been filled in and the occupier had acted reasonably.
Facts
Mrs Cole was walking across a village green when she caught her foot in a hole and broke her leg. The hole had been dug to hold a maypole for a village fête, and it had been filled in after the fête, but someone had removed the filling. She sued the owners of the green and the organisers of the fête.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that neither defendant was liable. Scott Baker LJ said that the hole had been properly filled in after the fête, and that the duty of the occupier was to take reasonable care, not to guarantee the safety of visitors. Accidents happen, and the law does not require occupiers to remove every possible danger. Not every accident is somebody else's fault, and the claimant had simply suffered an accident for which no one was responsible.
Related cases on occupiers' liability
- British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
- Bunker v Charles Brand & Son Ltd [1969] 2 QB 480
- Darby v National Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 189
- Edwards v Railway Executive [1952] AC 737
- Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44
- Haseldine v CA Daw & Son Ltd [1941] 2 KB 343
- Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 39, [2006] 1 WLR 953
- Laverton v Kiapasha [2002] EWCA Civ 1656
Studying tort law? 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.
