## Facts

- A colliery company owned and occupied a colliery and an adjacent field containing a refuse-haulage system with a terminal wheel and moving cable.
- The terminal wheel and related machinery were dangerous and attractive to children.
- The field’s hedge and fence had large gaps; the public commonly crossed the field as a shortcut, and children commonly played there.
- The company posted warning notices at gates and employees sometimes warned people (including children) to leave, but it did not effectively prevent entry.
- A child slightly over four years old entered the field without permission, played on or near the haulage wheel, was caught in the moving machinery, and died.
- The child’s father sued for damages, alleging the wheel was insufficiently protected given the company’s knowledge of habitual child trespass.
- A sheriff court found for the father; the First Division of the Court of Session affirmed (with a dissent), reasoning that knowledge of habitual child entry supported a duty.
- The House of Lords reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether the child was an invitee, licensee, or trespasser at the time of the accident.
2. If the child was a trespasser, whether the occupier owed any duty beyond refraining from intentional or reckless injury, despite knowledge of frequent child trespass and the presence of dangerous, attractive machinery.
3. Whether long-tolerated public and child entry could create an implied licence that altered the duty owed.

## Decision

- The House of Lords allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim.
- The child was a trespasser, not an invitee or licensee.
- An occupier owes a trespasser no duty to take reasonable care to make premises safe or to guard against hidden dangers.
- The only duty owed to a trespasser is to refrain from deliberate injury or conduct amounting to reckless disregard of the trespasser’s presence.
- Mere toleration of habitual trespass, and failure to fence effectively, does not convert trespassers into licensees.
- No intentional or reckless act by the occupier was shown on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Entrants fall into three categories—invitees, licensees, and trespassers—and the occupier’s duty depends on the category.
- Invitees are owed a duty of reasonable care to make premises reasonably safe for the visit’s purposes.
- Licensees are not owed a general duty to make premises safe, but are protected against traps or concealed dangers known (or that should be known) to the occupier and not apparent to the licensee.
- Trespassers are owed no duty of reasonable care; the occupier is liable only for intentional harm or recklessness tantamount to intentional harm.
- Knowledge that children frequently trespass, and that a hazard is attractive to children, does not by itself create a special duty of care to child trespassers absent wilful or reckless conduct.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that a very young child who entered industrial land without permission was a trespasser, and the occupier was not liable for failing to take precautions because no duty of reasonable care is owed to trespassers; liability requires intentional harm or reckless disregard, which was not proved.


Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries), Ltd. v. Dumbreck, [1929] A.C. 358 (H.L. 1929)