Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47; [2004] 1 AC 46
Citation:Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47; [2004] 1 AC 46
Rule of thumb:Do land-owners have to warn against dangers which are obvious? No, there is no legal obligation to warn against obvious dangers.
Background facts:
The facts of this case were that someone dived into an artificial lake which was not deep enough and suffered a head injury.
Judgment:
The Court held that there was a general duty to provide warnings, but there was not a duty to provide a warning against risks that were obvious.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘My Lords, the majority of the Court of Appeal appear to have proceeded on the basis that if there was a foreseeable risk of serious injury, the council was under a duty to do what was necessary to prevent it. But this in my opinion is an over-simplification. Even in the case of the duty owed to a lawful visitor under section 2(2) of the 1957 Act and even if the risk had been attributable to the state of the premises rather than the acts of Mr Tomlinson, the question of what amounts to "such care as is in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable" depends upon assessing … 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 measure. These factors have to be balanced against each other." Lord Hoffmann
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.