Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Occupiers and Obvious Risks||Contributor(s):||Lunney, Mark (author)||Publication Date:||2003||Handle Link:||https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/2017||Abstract:||In early 1995, John Tomlinson was severely injured when he hit his head on the bottom of a lake in Brereton Heath Country Park whilst unsuccessfully executing a dive. As the defendant occupier had erected signs prohibiting swimming in the lake, he brought a claim against the occupier under the 'Occupiers' Liability Act 1984' (UK), such Act governing the duty owed by all occupier to trespassers.Whilst the judge at first instance found little difficulty in dismissing the claim, the English Court of Appeal by majority allowed it, but reduced the damages by two-thirds to reflect the claimant's contributory negligence (see 'Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council  2 WLR 1120). However, the House of Lords unanimously reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal (see  J 3 WLR 705) and in doing so has provided much-needed guidance on what, if any, stepsneed to be taken in respect of what may be called "obvious risks" associated with the use of premises.||Publication Type:||Journal Article||Source of Publication:||Tort Law Review, 11(3), p. 140-145||Publisher:||Thomson Reuters||Place of Publication:||North Ryde, Australia||ISSN:||1039-3285||Field of Research (FOR):||180126 Tort Law||Peer Reviewed:||Yes||HERDC Category Description:||C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal||Other Links:||http://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/catalogue/shopexd.asp?id=1247
|Statistics to Oct 2018:||Visitors: 290
|Appears in Collections:||Journal Article|
School of Law
Files in This Item:
checked on Feb 6, 2019
Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.