Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1082

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal