## Facts

- Mr. Harvey, a 19-year-old, suffered serious injuries after falling from a 2.5-meter-high wall in a public park owned and maintained by Plymouth City Council.
- The wall separated the park from a road; Mr. Harvey had climbed the wall to retrieve a football and then fell.
- Mr. Harvey claimed the council breached its duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 by failing to prevent such accidents, suggesting warning signs or barriers should have been installed.
- Plymouth City Council asserted the wall presented an obvious danger, and Mr. Harvey had voluntarily assumed the associated risks by climbing it.
- At first instance, the trial judge ruled in favour of the council, finding no breach of duty as the danger was obvious.
- Mr. Harvey appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the council owed a duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 in relation to an obvious danger.
2. Whether the council breached any duty by failing to provide warnings or barriers in respect of the wall.
3. To what extent, if any, contributory negligence by Mr. Harvey should affect the outcome.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision, holding that the council had not breached its duty of care.
- It was found that the danger posed by the wall was obvious, and it was not reasonable to require the council to take further steps such as erecting warning signs or barriers.
- The court concluded that the duty of care does not extend to protecting individuals from obvious dangers willingly encountered.
- Imposing more onerous obligations would place an unreasonable burden on public authorities.
- The doctrine of contributory negligence was emphasized, noting that the claimant voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.

## Legal Principles

- The duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 requires occupiers to take reasonable care for the safety of lawful visitors, but this duty is not absolute and must be considered in context.
- Public authorities are not insurers of public safety.
- Where a danger is obvious and a claimant voluntarily accepts the risk, the occupier’s duty does not extend to guarding against such dangers.
- The principle of contributory negligence may reduce or defeat a claim where the claimant contributed to their own injury.
- The court’s decision aligns with previous cases, including Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47 and Ratcliff v McConnell [1999] 1 WLR 670, which establish that occupiers are not liable for injuries sustained due to obvious dangers voluntarily encountered.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal confirmed that Plymouth City Council was not liable for Mr. Harvey’s injuries, as the wall presented an obvious danger and the duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 did not require protection against such risks. The judgment clarifies that public authorities are not required to eliminate all hazards on their land and that individuals must bear responsibility for obvious dangers they willingly encounter.

Harvey v Plymouth CC [2010] EWCA Civ 860