Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2003] UKHL 47

A man became tetraplegic after diving into a shallow lake at a country park, despite clear warning signs. The House of Lords ruled the council was not liable, as the obvious danger arose from the claimant's own voluntary actions, not the state of the premises.

Facts

The claimant, Mr John Tomlinson, then aged 18, visited Brereton Heath Country Park, owned and occupied by Congleton Borough Council. In a reckless act, he performed a shallow dive into a lake (a former sand quarry) and struck his head on the sandy bottom. The impact severed his spinal cord, resulting in tetraplegia. The council had a policy of discouraging swimming for safety reasons and had posted prominent signs stating, “Dangerous Water. No Swimming”. Mr Tomlinson admitted seeing these signs. The council was aware that visitors frequently ignored the signs. It had considered more extreme measures to prevent access to the lake but had rejected them due to cost, aesthetic damage, and the desire to maintain the amenity for the public.

Issues

The central legal issue was the nature and extent of the duty of care owed by an occupier (the council) to a person on their land under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (if a visitor) or the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (if a trespasser). Specifically, the court had to determine whether a duty was owed for a risk that was perfectly obvious and arose not from the ‘state of the premises’ but from the claimant’s own voluntary high-risk activity. The court also considered the social utility of the defendant’s conduct and the wider implications of imposing such a duty.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the council’s appeal, overturning the majority decision of the Court of Appeal. The leading speeches were delivered by Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hutton.

Reasoning of the Court

The Law Lords determined that no duty of care was owed to the claimant in these circumstances. Lord Hoffmann, analysing the case under both the 1957 and 1984 Acts, concluded that the risk of injury was not attributable to a ‘danger due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them’. The danger was inherent in the claimant’s own activity.

“the risk was that he might not execute his dive properly and hit the bottom. This was a risk which was inherent in the activity which Mr Tomlinson chose to pursue. It was the same risk which he would have run if the lake had not been in a country park but in the wild. The risk was not one from which he was entitled to protection by the council under the 1957 Act.” – Lord Hoffmann

Even considering the claimant as a trespasser in the water and applying the 1984 Act, the court found that while a danger existed and the council knew people might come near it, it was not a risk against which the council could reasonably be expected to offer protection. Lord Hoffmann balanced the risk against the social value of the activity and the cost of prevention, stating:

“the question of what amounts to ‘such care as is in all the circumstances of the case reasonable’ depends upon assessing, as in the case of common law negligence, not only the likelihood that someone may be injured and the seriousness of the injury which may occur, but also the social value of the activity which gives rise to the risk and the cost of preventative measures. These factors have to be balanced against each other.” – Lord Hoffmann

The judgment strongly affirmed the principle of personal responsibility for one’s own actions, especially when dealing with obvious risks.

“I think it will be extremely rare for an occupier of land to be under a duty to prevent people from taking risks which are inherent in the activities they freely and voluntarily choose to undertake upon the land. Mr Tomlinson was a person of full capacity who voluntarily and without any pressure or inducement engaged in an activity which had an inherent risk… The respondent council was under no duty to him under the 1984 Act.” – Lord Hoffmann

Lord Hutton agreed, emphasising the obvious nature of the risk and the unreasonableness of imposing a duty to protect against it.

Implications

This landmark decision is of profound importance in the law of tort. It drew a clear line on the extent of an occupier’s duty, particularly in relation to adult visitors who engage in activities with obvious dangers. The case is widely seen as a significant judicial check on the perceived ‘compensation culture’ and the imposition of duties that would require public bodies to act as insurers against all risks. It established that the social utility of providing amenities for public enjoyment, and the potential for defensive measures to detract from that utility, are crucial considerations. The judgment reinforces the idea that the law should not require occupiers to protect people from their own informed, voluntary choices, thereby championing the concept of individual autonomy and personal responsibility.

Verdict: The appeal by Congleton Borough Council was allowed, and the claimant’s action for damages was dismissed.

Source: Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2003] UKHL 47