NO DUTY OF CARE OWED TO TRESPASSER IN RELATION TO OBVIOUS DANGER

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47; [2003] 3 WLR 705

The House of Lords in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47; [2003] 3 WLR 705 has allowed an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (on which see our May 2002 issue, pp.9–12) and held that the defendant occupier did not owe a duty of care to the claimant trespasser. The risk of injury to the claimant was an obvious one and the occupier was not expected to offer the claimant protection against such an obvious risk. A notable feature of the case is the robust language used by their Lordships in the dismissal of the claim. They clearly wish to place a limit on the ‘compensation culture’ and they emphasise that people should accept responsibility for the risks that they choose to run. The emphasis on ‘choice’ is an important one. The present case demonstrates that, where the risk of injury is an obvious one, the occupier is not under a duty to prevent people from taking these risks. But where the risk is not an ‘obvious’ one different considerations are likely to apply. In such a case the occupier is likely to be under a duty to warn the person coming on to his land of the dangers involved and, depending upon the facts, to take steps to provide protection against the risk of injury.