Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1082
Facts
D owned and occupied the common grounds of a block of flats. A boat attached to a trailer was abandoned on a grassy part of the grounds where children played, becoming derelict and rotten. No attempt was made to cover or fence off the boat. In December 1988 D placed a sticker on the boat reading ‘Danger; do not touch this vehicle unless you are the owner’ and claimed that the boat would be removed in 7 days if it was not claimed. In February 1990, C (14) and a friend of similar age attempted to repair the boat with plans to sail it. They lifted the front end of the boat onto the trailer in order to repair the hull. This made holes in the structure of the boat. While repairing the hull, the boat rocked forward and came down onto C, breaking his back and leaving him paraplegic.
Legal Issue
Was injury during the teenagers' attempt to repair the abandoned boat within the foreseeable risk of children meddling with it, despite the unusual mechanism?
Held
Finding For C, that C and his friend’s endeavours to repair the boat did fall under the reasonably foreseeable activity of children’s play. It is known, and should be expected, that children’s play will involve the mimicry of adult behaviour, especially for older children/teenagers. It is important to remember from The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] A.C. 388 that the precise manner in which an injury occurs, nor the extent has to be foreseeable; it is the source of danger that is important. D has admitted that C was a visitor on their land and, therefore, they had the common duty of care to see that C was reasonably safe when using the grounds for play. They also had a duty to assume that children will be less careful than adults.
⭐ Legal Principle
Where injury from children's interference with a dangerous object is foreseeable, the precise form of their activity need not be predicted. Jolley treated attempted repairs as within the relevant risk. It does not make occupiers strictly liable for every injury suffered by a child.
Significance
Jolley is useful for choosing the proper level of generality when describing foreseeable harm. The danger was not confined to younger children playing in one particular way; teenagers might imitate adult repair work. Hughes provides the broader remoteness comparison. The result still depended on the known abandoned object, the foreseeable meddling and reasonable steps which could have removed the risk. The claimant's own responsibility remained a separate consideration rather than eliminating the occupier's duty.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was an attempted repair within the foreseeable risk?
Children, including teenagers, may imitate adult activities when attracted to an abandoned object. The court therefore did not confine foreseeable meddling to simple play by small children. The attempted repair remained connected with the danger presented by the deteriorating boat left where children could access it.
Must the occupier predict use of the particular jack?
No. The precise mechanism was not the relevant level of prediction. The court considered whether physical injury from children meddling with the boat was foreseeable. Defining the risk as the exact sequence involving a particular jack would make the foreseeability inquiry artificially narrow.
Does a child's inventiveness guarantee recovery?
No. The claimant must still establish the relevant duty, breach, causation and foreseeable kind of injury. Jolley recognises that children's behaviour can be inventive, but does not insure every activity. The known hazard and the reasonable precautions available to the occupier remain central.