CS - Trespassers

• Siddorn v Patel (2007)


  The danger arose due to C dancing on a garage roof rather than the condition of the premises.
• Rhind v Astbury (2004)


  As the occupier did not know of a submerged fibreglass container resting on the bottom of a lake on its premises, no duty was owed to a trespasser who injured himself jumping into the lake. s.1(3)(a)
• Higgs v Foster (2004)


  The claim failed in this case because the occupier had no reason to suspect that the trespasser (a police officer carrying out surveillance) would come within the vicinity of the danger. s.1(3)(b)
• Donoghue v Folkestone Properties (2003)


  The Claimant was injured when he dived into a harbour in the middle of a winter’s night. The occupier did not owe a duty as they would not expect that a trespasser might be present or jump into the harbour at that time of day or year. The time of day and the time of year when the accident happened may be relevant for whether the occupier owes a duty of care.
• Tomlinson v Congleton BC (2003)


  The Claimant, aged 18, was injured diving into a lake. Like many others, he had ignored a sign: “Dangerous water: no swimming”. The Council planned to make the lake inaccessible but had not yet done so through lack of funds. No duty was owed under s.1(3)(c) as it wouldn’t be reasonable to offer protection against a natural feature of the lake. The risk did not arise from anything done or omitted to be done on the premises.
• Ratcliff v McConnell (1999)


  A 19-year-old student climbed over a locked gate after dark and dived into an outdoor swimming pool. He misjudged his dive and was seriously injured. The Court held that the occupier was not required to warn adult trespassers of the risk of injury arising from obvious dangers. It is well known that swimming pools vary in depth and diving without checking the depth is dangerous.
• Keown v Coventry NHS Trust (2006)


  An 11-year-old boy climbed a fire escape to show off to his friends and was badly injured when he fell. The Court decided that the occupier owed no duty of care to the Claimant as the accident happened through his own dangerous behaviour, rather than any risk arising from the state of the fire escape.
• Westwood v Post Office (1973)


  W ignored a warning sign and entered a room as a trespasser where he was then injured. The warning sign was sufficient notice so the post office was not liable.