No duty owed by fire escape owner

A fire escape was not itself dangerous so that, where evidence suggested there was no element of any disrepair or structural deficiency in its state, a child who chose to climb a fire escape knowing not only that there was a risk of falling but also that what he was doing was dangerous and he should not have been climbing its exterior was not owed a duty by the fire escape’s owner/occupier, under s 1(1)(a) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, since any danger was due to his activity and not the state of the premises.