Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
An occupier is not liable to a person injured by a danger arising from his own choice to take an obvious risk, such as diving into shallow water.
Facts
John Tomlinson, aged 18, went to a country park owned by the council, which contained a lake formed from a disused quarry. Swimming was prohibited, and there were notices saying so, but many people ignored them. He ran into the lake and dived from a standing position in shallow water, hit his head on the sandy bottom, and broke his neck, leaving him tetraplegic. The council had planned to make the beach unattractive to swimmers, but had not done so for lack of money. He sued the council under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the council was not liable. Lord Hoffmann said that the risk of injury arose not from the state of the premises, but from Mr Tomlinson's own choice to engage in a dangerous activity, and the risk of diving into shallow water was obvious. It is not the law that an occupier must protect people from obvious risks that they choose to run, because that would interfere with individual freedom and would deprive other people of the opportunity to enjoy the park. The social value of the activities that would have to be stopped, such as sunbathing and paddling, was relevant to what precautions were reasonable.
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.
