Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] UKHL 31

Two teenage boys were seriously injured when a derelict boat they were attempting to repair fell on them. The boat was abandoned on council land. The House of Lords held the council liable, establishing that the risk of injury was foreseeable.

Facts

The claimant, Justin Jolley, a 14-year-old boy, sustained severe spinal injuries resulting in paraplegia. The accident occurred when a small, abandoned cabin cruiser, left lying on a grassed area on an estate owned by the defendant, the London Borough of Sutton, fell on him. The boat had been derelict and in a dangerous condition for at least two years. The council was aware of its presence and had placed a sticker on it indicating it would be removed, but failed to do so. The claimant and his friend had been working on the boat for several weeks, intending to repair it. The accident happened when they propped the boat up with a car jack to work on the underside, and it toppled over.

Issues

The central legal issue was the scope of the duty of care owed by the council as an occupier under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. The key question was whether the specific type of accident and injury suffered by the claimant was reasonably foreseeable. The council argued that while it might have been foreseeable that younger children could be injured by playing on the unstable boat, it was not foreseeable that older boys would engage in a ‘major engineering project’ of jacking up the boat to repair it, and that this activity caused the injury.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal, restoring the trial judge’s decision in favour of the claimant. Their Lordships held that the council was liable for the injuries.

Lord Steyn’s Reasoning

Lord Steyn criticised the Court of Appeal’s narrow approach to foreseeability. He argued that the specific manner in which the accident occurred did not have to be foreseeable, as long as the general type of harm was. He found the distinction drawn by the Court of Appeal between ‘playing’ and ‘working on the boat’ to be unrealistic in the context of teenage boys’ activities. He stated:

The Court of Appeal’s distinction between the children playing on the boat and embarking on a ‘major engineering project’ is not a sustainable one. The first is a general description of the children’s activities; the second is a more specific description. The inventive part of the children’s activities was to prop it up. But that was one of the many things that boys of that age might do with an abandoned boat. The risk was that children would ‘meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury’.

Lord Hoffmann’s Reasoning

Lord Hoffmann, agreeing, emphasised that the foreseeability test should not be overly refined. He stressed that the boat itself was an ‘allurement’ which was inherently dangerous and invited children to meddle with it. The council’s duty was to guard against the foreseeable risk of injury arising from this allurement. He concluded that the very ingenuity of children in finding ways to play should be considered when assessing foreseeability. He explained:

The council’s submission is that it was not foreseeable that the boys would try to jack up the boat and repair it…But the judge’s finding was that the boat was an allurement… It was a trap. I think that the judge’s broad description of the risk as being that children would ‘meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury’ was the correct one to adopt… The actual injury fell within that description.

He referenced the Scottish case of Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837, reaffirming the principle that if the type of injury is foreseeable, the defendant is liable even if the precise manner in which it occurred was not.

Implications

This decision is significant for the law of occupiers’ liability and negligence, particularly in cases involving children. It clarifies that when assessing foreseeability, a court should not take an overly narrow or restrictive view of the likely activities of children. If an object is an ‘allurement’ that poses a danger, the occupier must foresee that children may interact with it in various, often inventive, ways. As long as the general type of physical injury is a foreseeable consequence of the occupier’s breach of duty, the occupier will be liable, even if the exact sequence of events leading to the injury was unusual or unexpected.

Verdict: The appeal was allowed. The order of the Court of Appeal was set aside and the order of the trial judge, finding the council liable, was restored.

Source: Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] UKHL 31