## Facts

- Daniel Keown, a 12-year-old boy, was injured after falling from a fire escape at Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital.
- The fire escape was accessible to the public and its design and accessibility were argued to attract children.
- Keown had climbed the structure, resulting in his severe injuries.
- The hospital trust, as occupier, was alleged to have breached its duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.
- The case focused on whether the fire escape posed a foreseeable risk to child trespassers and if reasonable steps had been taken to prevent such incidents.

## Issues

1. Whether the hospital trust owed a duty of care to Daniel Keown as a trespasser under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.
2. Whether the fire escape constituted an “allurement” to children, thereby increasing foreseeable risk.
3. Whether the hospital had taken reasonable steps to prevent harm to trespassing children.
4. Whether liability arises when the risk is created solely by the trespasser's own actions.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal found that the hospital had not breached its duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.
- It was determined the fire escape did not constitute an allurement, nor was it designed to attract children.
- The court held the hospital had taken reasonable precautions, including restricting access and posting warning signs.
- Liability would not be imposed where the danger arose from the actions of the trespasser and not from any dangerous condition created or permitted by the occupier.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, duty to trespassers arises if the occupier is aware of a danger, foresees that a trespasser may encounter it, and the risk is one against which protection may reasonably be expected.
- The concept of allurement refers to features likely to attract children and increase risk, but simple accessibility does not necessarily create liability.
- Reasonable steps to prevent harm do not require occupiers to eliminate all risks, particularly those originating solely from trespassers' actions.
- Liability is balanced to protect vulnerable individuals while not excessively burdening occupiers; foreseeability and creation of the risk are critical factors.

## Conclusion

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust clarified that occupiers are not liable for injuries resulting from dangers created solely by a child trespasser's own conduct, provided reasonable steps are taken to prevent foreseeable harm under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.


Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] 1 WLR 953