## Facts

- Mr. Tomlinson sustained severe spinal injuries after entering the lake head-first in a country park managed by Congleton Borough Council.
- The lake, formerly a quarry, attracted visitors, particularly during warm weather, despite the council’s warning signs and park rangers discouraging swimming.
- Mr. Tomlinson entered the water in defiance of prominent notices prohibiting swimming.
- He sued the council, alleging a breach of duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts, claiming the council was responsible for his injuries as a trespasser.
- The case advanced through the courts to the House of Lords, where the central issue was whether the council's duty of care extended to protecting trespassers from obvious risks voluntarily accepted.

## Issues

1. Whether the council owed a duty of care to Mr. Tomlinson under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 as a trespasser, given the obviousness of the risk.
2. Whether liability arises when injury results not from the state of the premises but from an individual’s voluntary act.
3. Whether occupiers must implement further safety measures or warnings when risks are apparent and voluntarily assumed.
4. The proper limits of responsibility imposed on public bodies to prevent harm arising from obvious dangers.

## Decision

- The House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that Congleton Borough Council was not liable for Mr. Tomlinson’s injuries.
- The duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 did not arise because the risk did not stem from the state of the premises, but from Mr. Tomlinson’s voluntary decision to enter the water head-first.
- The lake, as maintained by the council, was not dangerous in its normal state; the claimant’s conduct was the immediate cause of harm.
- The council had taken reasonable steps through warnings and supervision, sufficiently fulfilling its obligations.
- There is no duty to protect persons against self-inflicted harm resulting from obvious and voluntary risk-taking.

## Legal Principles

- Duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 requires that a risk arise from the state of the premises or acts or omissions of the occupier, not merely from the voluntary activity of the entrant.
- There is a clear distinction between dangers arising from the premises themselves and dangers created by individuals’ actions.
- Occupiers are not required to prevent people from taking obvious risks that they freely choose.
- Excessive imposition of duties on occupiers is discouraged, especially where the expense and practicality of preventative measures outweigh the actual risk.
- The principle of personal responsibility plays a key role in assessing liability for voluntary risk-taking.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council clarified the boundaries of occupiers' liability, ruling that there is no obligation to protect individuals from obvious dangers they voluntarily confront. This decision affirms that liability is contingent on risks arising from the premises themselves or the occupier’s activities, not solely from self-chosen conduct, and highlights the importance of personal responsibility in negligence law.


Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47 [2004] 1 AC 46 (HL)