Keown v Coventry NHS Trust [2006] 1 WLR 953
Facts
In October 1995, the 11-year-old C climbed the underside of an external metal fire escape of an accommodation block of a hospital; D was the owner of that hospital C fell from 30 ft, fractured his arm, suffered a brain injury and all this led to loss of intellectual functioning and a change in C’s personality The hospital’s premises were used as a means of accessing streets on either side, so it was not uncommon to see children playing around C had claimed on the basis that D owed him a duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 19841 to take reasonable care in all circumstances and prevent children from going to the fire exit, which the hospital knew was an allurement to children During the trial, D was held liable for 1/3 of the injuries suffered and C for 2/3 due to being a trespasser
Legal Issue
Did the risk arise from the state of the fire escape, as required by the 1984 Act, or from the child's chosen activity of climbing its exterior?
Held
The Court of Appeal allowed the hospital's appeal. The fire escape had no relevant structural defect or hidden danger; the risk arose from the claimant's decision to climb its exterior. He understood that the activity was dangerous. The threshold requirement of a danger due to the state of the premises was therefore not established on these facts. The result was not merely a further reduction for contributory negligence. Nor did the court establish that children's age is irrelevant throughout occupiers' liability. It held that this particular injury resulted from the chosen activity rather than a defect or danger attributable to the premises themselves.
⭐ Legal Principle
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 requires the relevant danger to arise from the state of the premises or things done or omitted there. Keown found the danger arose from climbing a sound fire escape, not from the premises. This threshold issue is distinct from contributory negligence.
Significance
Keown is often confused with cases about reducing a child's damages for carelessness. The claimant instead failed at the statutory threshold concerning the source of the danger. Tomlinson supplies the broader comparison between unsafe premises and risky activities, while Jolley shows that children interacting with a known hazardous object can raise different facts. The court's conclusion should not be converted into a general rule that age never affects the safety assessment.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was the sound condition of the fire escape important?
It was safe for its ordinary purpose and contained no relevant defect or concealed danger. The injury arose from climbing its outside. That distinction prevented the claimant establishing the required premises-related danger under the 1984 Act, rather than merely showing that he had contributed to his injury.
Was the result simply a contributory-negligence reduction?
No. The hospital's appeal succeeded because the statutory basis for the duty was not established. Contributory negligence concerns reducing damages after liability exists. Treating Keown only as an apportionment case skips the threshold question of whether the danger arose from the premises, which determined the appeal.
Why might Jolley have a different result?
Jolley concerned an abandoned deteriorating boat which presented a known attraction and hazard to children. Keown involved climbing the exterior of a sound fire escape with awareness of the danger. The cases require careful identification of the object's condition and the source of the risk, rather than a universal rule about child trespassers.