## Facts

- A seven-year-old boy died after eating poisonous berries from a shrub in Glasgow’s Botanic Gardens, owned and operated by Glasgow Corporation and open to the public.
- The shrub with the berries was easily accessible, located near a low fence, and frequented by children.
- No warning signs were present to indicate the danger posed by the shrub's berries.
- The boy's father sued Glasgow Corporation, alleging negligence for failing to protect children from foreseeable harm on their premises.

## Issues

1. Whether Glasgow Corporation, as landowner, owed a heightened duty of care to children entering its premises.
2. Whether failure to remove the poisonous shrub or warn visitors constituted a breach of that duty.
3. Whether the harm suffered by the child was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct.
4. Whether the breach of duty by Glasgow Corporation was the direct cause of the child’s death.

## Decision

- The court affirmed that a heightened duty of care is owed by landowners to children, reflecting their limited capacity to identify certain dangers.
- It was found that the lack of precautionary measures or warnings regarding the poisonous berries was negligent.
- The court determined that the risk presented by the berries was foreseeable due to their attractiveness to children.
- The breach of duty—failure to remove the plant or provide warnings—was directly linked to the child’s death.
- The House of Lords held in favour of the claimant, allowing the case to go forward.

## Legal Principles

- Landowners owe a higher standard of care to children, especially where there are hazards that may be particularly attractive or alluring to them.
- The concept of “allurement” identifies objects or features likely to attract children, increasing foreseeable risk.
- Negligence is established where a landowner fails to take reasonable steps to mitigate or warn against foreseeable dangers to children.
- A breach of duty leading directly to harm, particularly where the risk is foreseeable and directed at children, can result in liability for negligence.

## Conclusion

Glasgow Corp v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44 is a key authority on occupier’s liability, confirming that landowners must take affirmative steps to protect children from foreseeable dangers on their property, especially those risks that uniquely attract children and may not be readily apparent to them.
