Child occupiers’ liability cases can be complex, and two cases have considered the duty that occupiers have to protect children on their property.
Child Occupiers’ Liability Cases
Bourne Leisure v Marsden
In Bourne Leisure v Marsden [2009] EWCA CIV671, the family of two year old Matthew Marsden was staying at a caravan holiday park. Matthew wondered off from his mother and after a search of the site, they discovered that he had sadly drowned in one of the ponds on the site.
Matthew’s parents had been given a map of the park and were aware that there were ponds, but had not looked at the plans and did not know where they were located.
At Court, it was stated that the park had a responsibility under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, Section 2, to take care that visitors were reasonably safe using their premises, and to prepare for the fact that children are less careful than adults. The Judge found that the park had breached its duty by not making the pond more obvious, and that doing so could have prevented the accident. However, the holiday park appealed against the decision, and the Court of Appeal found that they were not to blame for the death. It stated that the dangers of the ponds were obvious to parents and that the park was not obliged to notify guests of an obvious risk.
The important issue was that the risk was ‘obvious’, and therefore the holiday park was not required to specifically explain the risks to children. Providing a site plan, which showed the ponds was enough – if they had not done this the situation may have been different.
Hall v Holker Estate CO Limited [2008]
This case contrasts with a previous case that also considered an accident at a caravan park. The claimant was playing football in goal at the holiday park. The frame of the goal fell onto him, injuring his jaw and teeth.
At Court, the Judge found that while the goal had not been properly secured and this was an obvious risk, as there had been no previous incidents and the holiday park took steps to regularly inspect the goal, it could not have been unsafe for long.
However, the claimant appealed and the Court of Appeal found in his favour. The holiday park could not prove that it had adequate systems in place to check the equipment’s safety, and it was therefore liable for the accident.
This case suggests that a defendant will not be liable if it can show that an accident would have been likely to happen despite an adequate checking system being in place.
How Nelsons Can Help
Bruce Williams is a Partner in Nelsons’ Personal Injury team.
For more information on personal injury law issues, please contact Bruce or another member of the team on 0800 024 1976 or contact us via our online form.