Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450
Facts
On an October evening a boy, aged five, while out blackberrying with his sister, aged seven, walked across a large open space of grassland, part of a building site on which a housing estate was being developed by the defendants. Through the grassland a long deep trench had been dug for the purpose of laying a sewer, and into this the boy fell and broke his leg. The children lived, with their parents, in a house in a road adjacent to the open grassland. Children were in the habit of using the land, and the defendants had taken no steps to prevent them from so doing, but there was no evidence that little children frequently went there unaccompanied.
Legal Issue
Had the occupier taken reasonable care where a five-year-old entered a building site without an adult and fell into a trench visible to an accompanying parent?
Held
The claim failed. Devlin J considered that the defendants could, in the circumstances, expect very young children to be accompanied or properly supervised by adults. An adult taking reasonable care could have seen the trench and prevented the child from approaching it. There was no evidence that the defendants should have recognised a regular practice of such young children using the site alone which would alter that expectation. The decision does not transfer every occupier's responsibility to parents. It concerns the precautions reasonably required on these facts and the significance of expected supervision. It also predates the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, which must be considered in a modern visitor claim.
⭐ Legal Principle
Reasonable expectations of parental supervision can affect the precautions an occupier must take for very young children. Phipps does not make parental responsibility an automatic defence: the child's age, the visible danger and what the occupier knows about unsupervised use remain material.
Significance
Phipps is commonly studied with the statutory requirement to recognise that children may be less careful than adults. The two propositions are compatible: the occupier considers children's vulnerability while also assessing whether responsible adults can reasonably be expected to protect them from an apparent danger. The judgment predates the 1957 Act and used the earlier visitor categories. Do not preserve those categories as the governing modern test or assume that knowing children enter land removes every duty to them.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did expected adult supervision matter?
The claimant was very young and the trench would have been apparent to an adult checking the area. On the evidence, the occupier could reasonably expect such supervision rather than anticipate regular unaccompanied use by children of that age. That expectation affected what precautions reasonable care required.
Does the case mean occupiers owe children no duty?
No. It addresses the standard of reasonable care in particular circumstances, not the absence of protection for children. An occupier who knows that very young children regularly enter alone may face a different assessment. Age, knowledge, danger and the practicality of precautions all remain relevant.
How should the case be applied under the 1957 Act?
Use its reasoning about expected supervision when evaluating reasonable care, while applying the statutory framework for visitors. The Act recognises that children may be less careful than adults. Phipps predates that legislation, so its historical licence terminology should not replace the modern statutory duty analysis.