## Facts

- A cabin cruiser on a trailer was abandoned on land owned and controlled by a local authority in the grounds of council flats where children played.
- The boat became derelict and rotten and was left accessible, without fencing or covering, for years.
- The council placed a warning sticker stating “Danger do not touch” and indicating removal within seven days, but did not remove the boat for a prolonged period.
- A 14-year-old boy and a friend repeatedly visited the site and decided to repair the boat so they could use it.
- The boys jacked up the boat using improvised supports to work underneath it.
- While the claimant was under the boat attempting repairs, it fell from the supports and crushed him, causing severe spinal injury and paraplegia.
- At trial, the court held the council liable under occupiers’ liability principles and reduced damages by 25% for the claimant’s contributory negligence.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed, reasoning that although injury to children playing nearby was foreseeable, the specific restoration activity and jacking up of the boat was not.
- The final appellate court reinstated liability.

## Issues

1. Whether, for remoteness and breach, it was enough that physical injury to children from interacting with the abandoned boat was foreseeable, or whether the precise accident sequence had to be foreseeable.
2. Whether the boys’ repair activity and jacking up of the boat constituted a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation.
3. Whether injuries to children “playing” with the boat were legally distinct from injuries to older children “repairing” it for foreseeability purposes under occupiers’ liability.

## Decision

- The final appellate court allowed the claimant’s appeal and restored the trial court’s finding of liability, including the 25% reduction for contributory negligence.
- The court held that the relevant question was whether injury of the relevant general description was foreseeable, not whether the precise mechanism (restoration, jacking, collapse) was foreseeable.
- It was reasonably foreseeable that children, including teenagers, would be attracted to and meddle with an abandoned, accessible, derelict boat and that physical injury could result.
- The boys’ conduct did not break the chain of causation; it fell within the scope of the risk created by leaving the hazard in place.
- The matter was remitted only for any remaining issues concerning quantum.

## Legal Principles

- Remoteness turns on foreseeability of the general kind of harm, not the exact manner of its occurrence or the full extent of injury.
- In occupiers’ liability, an occupier must take reasonable care to keep lawful visitors reasonably safe and must anticipate that children may be less careful than adults.
- Artificially narrowing foreseeability by distinguishing closely related modes of child interaction with a known hazard (e.g., “playing” versus “repairing”) is improper where the risk is the same general risk of physical injury from meddling.
- A claimant’s intervening conduct will not break causation where it is a foreseeable response to, or manifestation of, the danger created by the defendant’s breach.
- Contributory negligence may reduce damages without eliminating the occupier’s primary responsibility where the occupier’s breach materially contributed to the injury.

## Conclusion

The court held the council liable because leaving an accessible derelict boat where children played created a foreseeable risk of physical injury from children meddling with it, and liability was not defeated by the fact that the injury occurred through an unanticipated repair-and-jacking sequence or by treating the boys’ actions as a new intervening cause.


Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council, [2000] UKHL 31, [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1082 (H.L.)