Darby v National Trust
An occupier is not obliged to warn visitors of an obvious risk, such as drowning in a pond, which they can be expected to appreciate.
Facts
Mr Darby drowned while swimming in a pond at a property owned by the National Trust. The pond was used by visitors for paddling and swimming, and there were no notices warning against swimming. His widow sued the National Trust, arguing that it should have warned visitors of the risk of drowning, and of the risk of Weil's disease from the water.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the National Trust was not liable. May LJ said that the risk of drowning in a pond was perfectly obvious to any adult, and that there was no duty to warn of an obvious risk. A warning about Weil's disease would not have prevented the drowning, so the failure to give it did not cause the death. The occupier's duty is to take reasonable care to see that visitors are reasonably safe, not to protect them against obvious dangers.
Related cases on occupiers' liability
- British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
- Bunker v Charles Brand & Son Ltd [1969] 2 QB 480
- Cole v Davis-Gilbert [2007] EWCA Civ 396
- 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.
