Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council is a leading House of Lords decision on negligence and occupiers’ liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. The case is frequently cited for its clear approach to obvious dangers, personal responsibility, and the limits of an occupier’s duty towards trespassers.
It also reflects judicial concern about the expansion of liability in a way that might discourage socially useful activities.
Background and Procedural History
The litigation in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council originated in the High Court of Justice. The claimant initially succeeded, and that decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal, which held the local authority liable.
However, the council appealed further, and the matter reached the House of Lords. The House of Lords ultimately reversed the earlier decisions and found in favour of the council, bringing the proceedings to a close.
Facts of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council Case
The facts of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council centre on a serious injury suffered by the claimant while visiting a country park managed by the defendant local authority. The park included an artificial lake formed from a former quarry. The council had developed the area as a public amenity but considered the lake to be dangerous for swimming or diving.
Clear signs prohibiting swimming were displayed around the lake, and park rangers regularly attempted to prevent visitors from entering the water. Despite these measures, some visitors continued to swim. In May 1995, the claimant, an 18-year-old man, went to the park with friends. He entered the lake, dived in, struck his head on the bottom, and sustained a severe spinal injury that left him tetraplegic.
The claimant brought proceedings against the council under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, accepting that he was a trespasser rather than a lawful visitor. He sought compensation for loss of earnings, loss of quality of life, and the cost of future care resulting from his injuries.
Legal Issues
The central issues raised in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council concerned the scope of an occupier’s duty to trespassers. Specifically, the court considered whether the council owed the claimant a duty under section 1(3) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.
This required examination of whether the risk of injury arose from the state of the premises and whether the council could reasonably have been expected to offer protection against that risk.
A further issue involved section 1(4) of the Act, which deals with whether reasonable steps had been taken by the occupier to reduce or warn against the risk. The case also raised wider questions about the role of obvious dangers and the extent to which individuals are expected to take responsibility for their own actions.
Arguments Before the House of Lords
In Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council, the claimant argued that the premises were not reasonably safe for his use and that the council had failed to provide adequate warning of the dangers of diving into the lake. He relied on the council’s knowledge that people continued to ignore warning signs, suggesting that the existing precautions were ineffective.
The council contended that the claimant became a trespasser once he entered the lake, which was clearly prohibited. It argued that it had taken reasonable steps to deter swimming, including warning signs and active enforcement by park staff.
The council also maintained that the danger was obvious and that the injury resulted from the claimant’s own voluntary actions rather than from any dangerous condition of the land itself.
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council Judgement
The House of Lords allowed the council’s appeal in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council. The Lords held that the council was not liable under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. The key reasoning was that the risk which led to the claimant’s injury did not arise from the state of the premises but from the claimant’s decision to engage in an inherently dangerous activity.
It was emphasised that the lake was no more dangerous than any other body of water of a similar kind. There was nothing hidden or unusual about the risk involved in diving into water of unknown depth. The claimant was a person of full capacity who chose to take that risk despite clear signs prohibiting swimming and diving.
Reasoning and Judicial Observations
In Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council, the House of Lords placed strong emphasis on personal responsibility. Lord Hoffmann observed that it would be extremely rare for an occupier to be under a duty to prevent people from taking risks inherent in activities they freely choose to undertake.
Swimming and diving in a lake were activities carrying obvious dangers, and the law did not require occupiers to protect adults from such self-chosen risks.
Lord Scott expressed concern about imposing excessive safety obligations that could lead to a dull and overly restrictive environment. He commented that while youthful enthusiasm may involve some risk, this was not a sufficient justification for imposing extensive safety regimes on landowners.
Lord Hutton accepted that there could be exceptional cases where a natural hazard was so dangerous that an occupier might be required to take steps to protect people, such as where there was a particularly hazardous path with a history of accidents. However, the facts of this case did not fall into that category.
Public policy considerations also played a role. Lord Hobhouse warned against an unrestrained culture of blame and compensation, noting that such a culture could interfere with individual liberty and discourage authorities from providing recreational facilities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council represents a clear statement from the House of Lords on the limits of occupiers’ liability towards trespassers. The decision confirms that obvious dangers, voluntarily encountered, do not generally give rise to liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.
By focusing on personal responsibility and the nature of the risk, the case continues to shape English tort law and provides guidance on how far occupiers are expected to go in making their land safe for others.