Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450

Facts

  • A five-year-old boy (the plaintiff) was injured after falling into an open trench while playing on land owned by Rochester Corporation.
  • The land contained an obvious hazard in the form of the trench, which was not secured or accompanied by warning signs.
  • The area was accessible and known to be frequented by local children.
  • The plaintiff's parents were aware of the trench but permitted him to play nearby without direct supervision.
  • The case was brought to determine whether Rochester Corporation was liable in negligence for the child's injuries.

Issues

  1. Whether Rochester Corporation owed, and breached, a duty of care to protect very young children from hazards such as open trenches on its land.
  2. Whether the landowner's duty was reduced where parental supervision could reasonably be expected.
  3. Whether the parents' failure to supervise their child adequately contributed to or removed liability from the Corporation.

Decision

  • The court found that the open trench was an obvious hazard, making some risk to children foreseeable.
  • Despite this, the court held Rochester Corporation not liable because it was reasonable to expect that very young children would be accompanied and supervised by their parents.
  • The parents' lack of supervision was found to significantly contribute to the accident.
  • The landowner's duty of care to protect against such hazards was held not to be absolute, particularly where parental responsibility plays a central role.

Legal Principles

  • A landowner owes a duty of care to visitors under the tort of negligence and, specifically, the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, but this duty is not absolute.
  • The standard of care is affected by the foreseeability of harm and the age and understanding of the child visitor.
  • Parents bear primary responsibility for supervising very young children and preventing them from wandering into obvious dangers.
  • The allocation of liability for child injuries considers both landowner precautions and the adequacy of parental supervision.

Conclusion

Phipps v Rochester Corporation established that liability for injuries to very young children on another's land may be limited where hazards are obvious and parental supervision is reasonably expected; landowners are not absolute insurers against all child accidents and responsibility is shared with parents.

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