Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] UKHL 31

A 14-year-old boy was seriously injured when an abandoned boat, left on council land for years, collapsed on him while he attempted to repair it. The House of Lords held the council liable, finding it reasonably foreseeable that children would meddle with the abandoned boat and risk physical injury.

Facts

In 1987, a cabin cruiser was abandoned on the grounds of a block of council flats owned by Sutton London Borough Council. The boat became derelict and rotten over time. The council placed a warning sticker on it in December 1988 but failed to remove it despite complaints from residents. In 1990, Justin Jolley, aged 14, and a friend decided to repair the boat. They jacked it up to work underneath it. The boat collapsed onto Justin, causing him spinal injuries resulting in paraplegia.

Issues

Primary Issue

Whether the type of accident that occurred was reasonably foreseeable such that the council breached its duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

Secondary Issue

Whether the boys’ actions in jacking up the boat constituted a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal, restoring the trial judge’s decision in favour of Justin Jolley. The trial judge had found that the type of accident was reasonably foreseeable, noting that the presence of an abandoned boat would attract children of varying ages to meddle with it, and that teenage boys might mimic adult behaviour in attempting repairs.

Lord Steyn held that the Court of Appeal had erred in reversing the trial judge’s findings. He emphasised that what must be foreseeable is not the precise injury but injury of a given description. The judge’s finding that an accident involving the collapse of a propped-up boat was foreseeable was justified on the evidence.

Lord Hoffmann agreed, noting that the council’s concession that they should have removed the boat was significant. Since removing the boat would have eliminated both the narrow risk of children falling through rotten planking and the wider risk of other injuries from meddling with it, the council was liable. He observed that children’s ingenuity in finding unexpected ways of doing mischief should never be underestimated.

Legal Principles

The case confirmed that under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, occupiers owe a common duty of care to visitors, and must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. The test of reasonable foreseeability does not require the precise manner of injury to be foreseeable, but rather that injury of the general type or description that occurred was foreseeable. The House of Lords affirmed that Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 and The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] AC 388 are consistent authorities on this point.

Implications

This decision reinforced that occupiers must take particular care regarding hazards attractive to children, and that courts should adopt a broad approach when considering foreseeable risks. It confirmed that once a duty is established, defendants will be liable for injuries falling within the general description of foreseeable harm, even if the precise mechanism of injury was unexpected. The case also emphasised that appellate courts should be slow to disturb trial judges’ findings of fact on matters of reasonable foreseeability.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The House of Lords restored the trial judge’s decision finding Sutton London Borough Council liable, with the case remitted to the Court of Appeal to consider any issues relating to quantum of damages.

Source: Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] UKHL 31