Tort - Seminar 13 -SW101 by Claire Turner

Problem Scenario One - After the injury which Melanie sustained in the park owned by Seaside Borough Council (in Seminar 12), the Borough Council sent two employees, Fred and Tom, to repair the damaged wall. They repaired the wall as instructed, but, as it was a hot day and it was their lunch break, they decided to spend an hour cliff jumping into the sea below. They have carried out such an activity many times before with their friends during the weekend and have never come to any harm. However, Tom slipped and landed on the cliff side causing him serious injury. Advise Seaside Borough Council as to its liability in respect of Tom's injuries.

claire43 — 2021-01-25 20:30:16 UTC

Problem Scenario Two Birkston Borough Council owns the John Smith Memorial Park. The council has long been aware of a problem with people taking short cuts across the park late at night. It is constantly putting up higher gates and mending broken fences. James, aged 20, took a short cut across the park late one night after the park had closed. To gain entry to the park, he had to climb over a very high gate on one side and break through a fence on the other side. On his way across the park, James fell down an exposed trench which had been dug by council workmen earlier that day, to allow for a new drainage system in the park. As a result of his fall, James suffered a broken neck.Advise Birkston Borough Council, which is facing a claim from James.

claire43 — 2021-01-25 20:30:34 UTC

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.

claire43 — 2021-01-26 10:07:53 UTC

Vicarious liability & OLA

teganlottieleighwilliams — 2026-01-20 15:34:08 UTC

VL - Council is unlikely to be liable for toms injuries. frolic of his own. If the employer causes injury or damage to another whilst doing something or at a time outside the area of time of his work the employer cannot be liable. In such circumstances it is said that the employee is acting on a frolic of his own. Storey v Ashton: driver was making a delivery. On the way back he deviated to run an errand of his own and injured the claimant. The employer was not liable as the detour amounted to a new independent journey.

volenti non fit injuria - consented to the risk. case - ratcliffe v mcconell

Warning signs- S2(4) Darby V NT- warning sign put up about the risk and how cliff diving is strictly forbidden

scenario 1

ashbyjake61 — 2026-01-20 15:36:27 UTC

Is he a trespasser?

he was a visitor under his employment, but then turned into a trespasser as he violated his scope of permission. (section 1(2) OLA 1984 - no duty OLA 57 - as they are not invited to 'cliff jump' (The Calgarth)

did tom have enough awareness of the danger - obvious danger (Ratcliffe v McConnell, Darby v NT)

he is an adult, there were signs, and the danger is obvious, inherent the nature of cliff jumping, in spite of previous excursions cliff jumping. Cliff jumping is also irrelevant to his work/skills, therefore volenti applies, he had full knowledge and cannot mitigate any liability (Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd) (Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003[
Aware danger - clearly aware - as they know people are jumping and they have put the sign up. - Know people will be in the vicinity. Reasonable to offer protection? - Fence off the cliff - unreasonable cost when people should realise this is an obvious risk.

Can the council exclude liability?

yes - he was a trespasser and thus there is no contractual/legal relationship. (unfair contract terms act 1977)

Is tom liable?

very likely to be - knew about the consequences and jumped anyway

Darcey smith- scenario 1

2026-01-20 15:37:31 UTC

I- whether or not seaside borough council is liable for toms in Jurys under OLA 1984

R- s1(1) duty owed to trespassers: Ovu v London undergroundLtd.

s1(3) must be aware of the danger , people may come onto vacinity.

protection is reasonable expected , s1(4) duty is to take reasonable care of tresspassers.

s1(8) damages for personal injury only

s1(5) warning signs.

s1(6) exeptance of risk= no duty

contributory negligence UCTA

A- tom is a tresspasser, seaside borough council is aware of the danger( cliff jumping)

they provided a warning sign, willingly ignored by tom. toms injury can be covered by the scope of the act.

council can't exclude liability for tresspassers.

C- contributory negligence may reduce liability.

scenario 2 - OLA 1984

teganlottieleighwilliams — 2026-01-20 15:38:22 UTC

Rule:

-Duty owed under OLA s1(3) if the occupier is aware of the danger and there is belief people may come into contact they need to try prevent this

-White vs St Albans- a fence cannot be used to prevent people

Application:

-No warning signs surronding the fact that work was being done and council was aware of the trench and was aware people were trying to sneak in