Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council H.L.

2 Lloyd’s Rep 65 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Sutton (D) was owner of a block of flats. In 1987 a boat with trailer was abandoned, in a grassy area where cars had been abandoned - and kids played. It deteriorated; its timbers rotted. In 1988 D stuck a notice on boat: ‘Danger - do not touch unless you are the owner. Will be removed within 7 days unless claimed’. Residents complained, but nothing was done. In 1989, Jolley (P), 13 years old, and a friend planned to fix the boat and sail it. They jacked it up to 2.5 ft. high and they painted and patched it. At one instance one of their feet goes through the boat from rot. They work on it on 5 occasions over 6 wks. On the last occasion, the boat falls off its props and P’s back is injured, rendering him paraplegic. D finally removed the boat. P sued for damages. The trial court discussed the attractive nuisance doctrine and held that an occupier is under a duty to protect a child from danger caused by meddling with such an object by taking reasonable steps in the circumstances including, where appropriate, removing the object altogether so as to avoid the prospect of injury. The court held that an injury was reasonably foreseeable and the nature of the acts of the children did not amount to novus actus (superseding acts). The court awarded damages and reduced them 25% for P’s contributory negligence. D appealed, and the court of appeals reversed. It cited the decision in the Privy Council in Overseas Tank (U.K.) Limited v. Morts Docks and Engineering Company Limited (The Wagon Mound) [1961] A.C. 388 ('The Wagon Mound No. 1') and Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837. Lord Woolf reasoned on whether the accident was of a different type and kind from anything that a defender could have foreseen? The court held that P was engaged in an activity very different from normal play and that it was not reasonably foreseeable that an accident could occur as a result of the boys deciding to work under a propped-up boat. Nor could any reasonably similar accident have been foreseen. Lord Woolf M.R. also held that his conclusion could also be justified on the grounds that one boys' own acts broke the chain of causation. P appealed.