## Facts

- Sutton London Borough Council owned land on which an old, abandoned boat was left.
- The Council placed a warning sign advising against touching the boat, but did not remove it.
- Two teenage boys began repairing the boat, propping it up with a car jack.
- The boat toppled onto one boy, causing severe spinal injuries, including paraplegia.
- The injured boy, through a claim under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, alleged the Council breached its duty of care.
- The High Court found for the claimant, deciding it was reasonably foreseeable children would meddle with the boat and suffer injury.
- The Court of Appeal overturned this, holding that, while general injury from playing was foreseeable, injury from attempting repairs was not.
- The matter was appealed to the House of Lords.

## Issues

1. Whether the Council was liable under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 for failing to remove the abandoned boat.
2. Whether, for negligence liability, it is necessary to foresee the precise manner of the injury or only the general type of risk.
3. Whether foreseeability should be assessed differently where child claimants are involved.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held the Council liable for the boy’s injuries.
- The Court found that the foreseeability requirement in negligence relates to the type of injury, not the precise sequence of events.
- The decision established that the general risk of children suffering physical injury by interacting with the derelict boat was foreseeable.
- The fact that the boys were repairing rather than simply playing with the boat did not negate liability.
- The House of Lords overturned the Court of Appeal and restored the High Court’s decision in favour of the claimant.

## Legal Principles

- The requirement for foreseeability in negligence focuses on the general nature of the risk, not the exact circumstances or manner of the accident.
- The scope of duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 includes risks to children who may act unpredictably.
- Defendants must consider that children may find novel ways to injure themselves, broadening the category of foreseeable harm.
- The ruling affirms the reasoning in Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837, that it is the kind rather than the precise mechanism of damage that must be foreseeable.
- The judgment distinguishes itself from The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388 by allowing liability for injuries arising through mechanisms not specifically foreseen, so long as the general risk was foreseeable.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords in Jolley v Sutton LBC affirmed that liability in negligence depends on the foreseeability of the type of harm, rather than the precise method by which it occurs, particularly where child safety is involved. The case highlights a more flexible, fact-sensitive approach to foreseeability in negligence, especially regarding risks posed to children.


Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1082