Phipps v Rochester Corporation
An occupier is entitled to assume that the parents of young children will not allow them to go to dangerous places unaccompanied.
Facts
Ian Phipps, aged five, was out picking blackberries with his seven year old sister on an open space owned by the council, which was being developed for housing. The council had dug a deep trench, which an adult would have seen easily. Ian fell into the trench and broke his leg. Children often played on the land, and the council knew this. He sued the council.
Legal principle
Devlin J held that the council was not liable. He said that the responsibility for the safety of little children must rest primarily upon the parents, and that it is their duty to see that such children are not allowed to wander about by themselves, or at least to satisfy themselves that the places to which they allow their children to go unaccompanied are safe. An occupier is entitled to assume that parents will behave as ordinary sensible parents, and the trench was not a danger to anyone accompanied by a responsible adult.
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
- 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
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.
