## 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.


Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450