The case of Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450 is a leading English tort law decision concerning negligence and occupiers’ liability, particularly in relation to children. It provides clarity on the extent of the duty of care owed by occupiers of land to children who enter their premises and the role of parental responsibility in such situations. The case draws a clear distinction between obvious dangers that any ordinary person would recognise and concealed dangers or hidden traps that might mislead or endanger a child.
This decision remains significant in the development of occupiers’ liability law as it balanced the competing interests of landowners, children’s safety, and the expectations of parental supervision.
Facts of Phipps v Rochester Corporation
The claimant in Phipps v Rochester Corporation was a five-year-old boy who, along with his seven-year-old sister, ventured out blackberrying. The land they entered was open grassland forming part of a housing estate being developed by the defendant, Rochester Corporation. At the time, the Corporation had dug a long and deep trench as part of sewerage works. This trench was situated in the middle of the grassland and had been left unfenced and unprotected.
While crossing the land, the claimant fell into the trench and sustained a broken leg. Families in the local area often allowed their children to play on the grassland, and the Corporation knew that children frequented the site. However, there was no evidence to suggest that very young children regularly visited the area without adult supervision.
The injured child, through his representatives, brought an action in negligence and under the principles of occupiers’ liability, claiming damages for the injuries he had sustained as a result of falling into the trench.
Issues
The Phipps v Rochester Corporation case raised several important legal questions:
- Was the child a licensee?
If children frequently played on the land with the knowledge of the defendants, was there an implied licence permitting them to do so? - What duty of care was owed to very young children?
Did the Corporation have to take special precautions to protect against dangers that might not be obvious to very young children? - Was the trench an actionable danger?
Was it the sort of hazard that required the Corporation to take steps to secure or fence it, particularly knowing children were likely to be present? - Parental responsibility versus occupiers’ liability:
Should the parents of young children bear primary responsibility for ensuring their safety in such circumstances?
Phipps v Rochester Corporation Judgement
The High Court found in favour of the defendants, Rochester Corporation.
- The court accepted that the claimant was a licensee, since the Corporation knew that children played on the land and had done nothing to prevent this. Therefore, there was an implied licence permitting entry.
- However, the defendants had not breached their duty of care towards the claimant. The court noted that occupiers are entitled to assume that reasonable parents will not allow very young children to roam unsupervised in potentially dangerous places such as building sites.
- The trench was considered an obvious danger to adults and older children. Even though a very young child might not appreciate the risk, the lack of evidence of unaccompanied children regularly using the site meant that the Corporation was not under a duty to take further precautions.
- As a result, the responsibility in this situation rested primarily with the child’s parents rather than the Corporation.
The claimant’s action therefore failed, and the Corporation was not held liable.
Conclusion
The judgement in Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450 illustrates the limits of an occupier’s liability towards children and underscores the significance of parental supervision. The court recognised that the trench was dangerous but emphasised that it was an obvious danger which reasonable adults and older children would avoid. The absence of evidence that very young children commonly played unaccompanied in the area meant that the defendants were not under a duty to provide additional safeguards.
