Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2004] 1 AC 46

Facts

  • John Tomlinson sustained severe injuries after jumping into a shallow lake in Brereton Heath Country Park, managed by Congleton Borough Council.
  • The council had taken measures to deter swimming, such as installing warning signs and attempting to restrict access to the lake.
  • Tomlinson was injured while engaging in a recreational activity that was known to carry obvious risks, despite the council’s warnings and deterrent measures.
  • The case required consideration of whether the council had breached its duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.

Issues

  1. Whether the council owed a duty of care to Tomlinson under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 for injuries from a natural hazard in a public park.
  2. Whether the measures taken by the council (warning signs and restricting access) were sufficient to discharge any duty owed.
  3. Whether imposing further liability would undermine the social utility of public spaces and unreasonably restrict access to natural features.
  4. Whether Tomlinson’s voluntary assumption of risk precluded recovery.

Decision

  • The House of Lords ruled in favour of Congleton Borough Council, holding it had not breached its duty of care.
  • The lake was considered a natural feature and not an "unusual danger," and the council had taken reasonable steps to warn visitors.
  • The duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 is not absolute but depends on context, including the hazard’s nature and the practicability of further precautions.
  • Tomlinson voluntarily assumed the risk by ignoring clear warnings and thus could not recover.
  • The court emphasized the impracticality of requiring councils to eliminate all possible dangers in public spaces.

Legal Principles

  • The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 imposes a contextual, not absolute, duty of care on occupiers regarding hazards in public areas.
  • Liability does not arise where there is a natural hazard and reasonable warnings have been provided.
  • There must be a balance between public safety, personal responsibility, and the social benefits of open public spaces.
  • Voluntary assumption of risk by a claimant can absolve an occupier of liability.
  • Distinction exists between natural and artificial hazards in assessing occupiers' liability.
  • Local authorities are not insurers of public safety; their liability only arises upon failure to take reasonable steps concerning known dangers.

Conclusion

The House of Lords established that local authorities are not strictly liable for natural hazards in public parks when reasonable warnings are given, reaffirming the importance of personal responsibility and social utility over imposing excessive obligations on occupiers.

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