Revill v Newbery
An occupier who shot a trespasser through a hole in his shed door was liable, because he owed the trespasser a duty of care, although the trespasser's damages were reduced for his contributory negligence.
Facts
Mr Newbery, aged 76, kept valuable items in a brick shed on his allotment, and slept there to protect them from vandals and thieves. Mr Revill and another man tried to break into the shed at night. Mr Newbery, who was frightened, fired a shotgun through a small hole in the door, hitting Mr Revill in the arm and chest. Mr Revill sued him for his injuries.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Newbery was liable. Neill LJ said that the duty owed to a trespasser was governed by the principles in the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, and the common law duty was similar, and that Mr Newbery had used more force than was reasonable, because he should not have fired the gun at the door when he knew someone might be standing behind it. The defence of illegality did not apply, because the law did not regard a burglar as an outlaw who could be injured with impunity. However, Mr Revill's damages were reduced by two thirds for his contributory negligence.
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.
