## Facts

- A four-year-old boy was fatally injured by machinery located in a field used by a colliery company for its haulage system.
- The field was enclosed by a hedge that was in disrepair, allowing easy access through gaps.
- Local children regularly entered the field to play, and others used it as a shortcut to a railway station.
- The colliery was aware of this frequent trespassing; employees sometimes attempted to deter the children.
- The incident involved dangerous machinery considered attractive to children, raising questions about the occupier's responsibility for safety.
- The central question was whether the occupier owed a duty of care to the child, who was a trespasser, with respect to the danger posed by the machinery.

## Issues

1. Whether the colliery owed a duty of care to the child, as a trespasser, for injuries sustained on their property.
2. Whether the presence and attractiveness of dangerous machinery to children imposed a heightened duty on the occupier.
3. Whether foreseeability of harm to trespassing children created a legal obligation for the occupier to prevent accidents.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held in favour of the colliery, finding that no duty of care was owed to the child as a trespasser.
- The court clarified that occupiers are not obliged to protect trespassers from existing hazards on their land, irrespective of the trespasser's age or awareness.
- The duty of care to trespassers is limited to not causing intentional harm or acting with reckless disregard for their safety.
- The colliery was not found to have acted recklessly and was therefore not held liable for the child's injury.

## Legal Principles

- The duty of care ordinarily owed by occupiers does not extend to trespassers beyond refraining from intentional or reckless harm.
- Foreseeability of trespass, even by vulnerable individuals such as children attracted by dangerous features, does not create a general duty to ensure their safety.
- The decision reinforced a clear legal distinction between the rights of lawful visitors and trespassers on private property.
- The rule in this case was later modified by Herrington v British Railways Board [1972] AC 877, which introduced the concept of "common humanity" as a basis for occupiers' liability in certain circumstances.

## Conclusion

Addie & Sons v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358 established that occupiers owe only a minimal duty of care to trespassers, emphasizing that responsibility for avoiding harm largely rests with the trespasser; this strict principle, however, was later revised to reflect developments in occupiers' liability.
