Seminar 12 - Tort - Group FT108 by Claire Turner

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 — 2022-12-13 11:23:06 UTC

Seminar Problem Two Melanie, 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 — 2022-12-13 11:23:40 UTC

claire43 — 2024-01-11 15:44:13 UTC

Step 1 - Visitor - implied permission to use the park.

Step 2 - Occupier? Council - Harris v Birkenhead (control of park)

Step 3 - Permission as a visitor

what is the duty? s2(2)

Step 4 - Special Rules - s2(3)a - prepared children to be less careful than adults.

Allurement? - Glasgow Corp v Taylor - swings

Parental responsibility - Phipps v Rochester

Apply - age 10 no need for supervision and the park should have been safe for children to use.

Notice - s2(4)(a) - children are unlikely to read sign so it did not allow the children reasonably safe for the purpose of using the park. A reasonable Council would have taken down the swings or cordoned them off.

Is she a visitor or trespasser?

claire43 — 2024-01-11 15:53:26 UTC

Claimant - visitor as implied permission to use park.

Defence - boundary wall is not intended to be climbed on, particularly next to a cliff.

OLA 84 liability

OLA 57 - Visitor

Occupier - Seaside Borough council

Special rules - Children - as above. Wall is an allurement; Parental responsibility - at 6 her parents should have supervised her particularly with the risk of injury at the cliff edge.

Notice - UCTA '77 - can't exclude personal injury.

Trespasser - Aware danger

Reasonable ground that they would be in the vicinity - sign shows they are aware people are climbing over the wall to cliff jump.

Danger they offer protection .