Tort - Seminar 12 - Occupier's Liability - SW102 by Claire Turner

claire43 — 2026-01-12 21:32:13 UTC

Seminar Problem One - Birkston Borough Council owns the John Smith Memorial Park.Susan, aged ten, visited the park with her parents. She saw a set of very old swings and ran away from her parents to play on them. Susan took no notice of a big sign erected by the council that said:“Danger – Do Not Use Swings With Rusting Chains.”Susan was injured when the rusting chains of the swing she was using broke, sending her tumbling to the ground.Advise Birkston Borough Council, which is facing a claim from Susan’ s parents (on Susan’s behalf).

claire43 — 2026-01-12 21:32:20 UTC

Seminar Problem TwoMelanie, aged 6, was on holiday with her parents in Cornwall. They went to the local park owned by Seaside Borough Council, which is on a cliff top with steps leading down to the beach.On the boundary between the park and the cliff edge the council had erected a wall to protect children from falling over the cliff top.Next to the steps leading to the beach, the council put up a notice advising the visitors to the park to:“Take care when descending down the steps which may be slippery when wet. Cliff jumping is strictly forbidden. Seaside Borough Council cannot accept liability for any injury howsoever caused.”Melanie’s parents were sitting on a bench in the park and failed to notice that she had wandered off. She climbed on the boundary wall, which crumbled under her weight, and fell 100 feet to a ledge on the cliff, suffering serious injuries.Advise Seaside Borough Council, which is facing a claim from Melanie’ s parents (on Susan’s behalf).

claire43 — 2026-01-12 21:32:27 UTC

claire43 — 2026-01-13 11:45:40 UTC

OLA 57 - permission to be there as a visitor to the park.

Step 1 - due to the state of the premises.

Step 2 - Council control of the land - owe duty of care (Harris v Birkenhead

Step 3 - Permission

Step 4 - Duty - s2(2) - common duty - they have to make sure the park is reasonably safe for the purpose of children playing on park.

Step 5 - Special rules

Children - s2(3)a

Parental responsibility - Phipps v Rochester

Opposing argument - Claimant - Allurement (Glasgow Corporation v Taylor) They should have cordoned it off or taken them down. Warning sign will be argued but in response the claimant will say that a notice is unlikely to be read by a child and so is insufficient to ensure they are reasonably safe for the purpose of playing in the park. At ten, a parent should be able to allow their child the freedom to play in a park unsupervised and not worry about risk of injury.

Warning sign - s2(4)(a)

Step 6 - potential contributory negligence of the parents who haven't checked the safety of the park.

Defence - parents should have been watching their child and not let them go on a swing that is broken,

claire43 — 2026-01-13 11:55:39 UTC

Step 1 - state of premises

Step 2 - Council - as above

Step 3 - Permission - arguably a visitor in using park. But as she has climbed on the wall which is not part of the park - ? trespasser

Step 4 - duty as above

Step 5 - Child - as above - wall is allurement. The reason why this accident happened was they weren't watching their child who is very young (Phipps v Rochester)

Notice - can't exclude liability - UCTA 77

Claimant - sign is insufficient and should raised the height wall

Defence would argue - Staples v West Dorset/Darby v NT = obvious risk

Step 6 - volenti/contributory negligence