判决理由
For the purposes of both negligence and the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, foreseeability of harm is assessed at the level of the type or kind of harm, not the precise mechanism by which it occurs. Where it is foreseeable that children will be attracted to a hazardous object and will meddle with it and sustain injury, the occupier's duty is not discharged merely because the accident occurred in a way that was not precisely anticipated. The breadth of the foreseeable risk determines liability, and an unusual or unexpected manner of injury does not negative causation if the general kind of risk was present and the injury was of a type that could reasonably be foreseen.
事实
Sutton London Borough Council allowed an abandoned cabin cruiser to lie on a grassed area of its housing estate, close to a block of flats, for about two years. It attached a notice warning that the boat would be removed if unclaimed, but never removed it. Though rotten, the boat looked repairable, and children were known to play on it. Justin Jolley, aged 14, and a friend jacked it up to repair it and worked underneath; it slipped off the jack and fell on Justin, causing serious spinal injuries that left him paraplegic.
判决摘要
The House of Lords (Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, and Lord Millett, with Lord Slynn and Lord Clyde) unanimously allowed the appeal and restored the first-instance judgment. Sutton LBC had allowed an abandoned, dilapidated boat to remain on its estate for approximately two years, despite a notice being attached to it promising removal. The council failed to remove it. Justin Jolley, aged 14, and a friend found the boat and attempted to repair it, jacking it up and working underneath. The boat fell on Justin, causing severe spinal injuries. The Court of Appeal had reversed the trial judge, holding the specific accident was not foreseeable. The House of Lords restored the original judgment. Lord Steyn emphasised that the court's approach to foreseeability must focus on the general type of hazard, not the precise sequence of events. The broad risk — that children would be attracted to the derelict boat, meddle with it, and suffer injury — was plainly foreseeable. The precise mechanism (jacking the boat up and working beneath it) did not take the case outside the scope of the foreseeable risk. Lord Hoffmann agreed: the relevant question is not whether anyone would have predicted this particular accident but whether the general type of risk materialised. The council's two-year failure to remove the hazard made it liable.
关键引述
"The question was whether it was reasonably foreseeable that children would meddle with the boat and possibly suffer injury as a result. The precise manner in which injury was sustained does not have to be foreseen."
— Lord Steyn at 1088
"The type of risk here — that children would be attracted to the boat and might be injured by meddling with it — was plainly foreseeable, even if the precise way the accident occurred was not."
— Lord Hoffmann at 1091
"It is important not to fix on the precise form in which the accident occurred. Foreseeability operates at the level of the kind of harm, not the exact sequence of events."
— Lord Millett at 1093
后续处理
Followed as authoritative on the level of generality at which foreseeability is assessed. Applied in courts dealing with child accident cases involving obvious hazardous objects.
Distinguished in Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2003] UKHL 47, where the House of Lords held that the risk of diving in a lake was not of the same kind as an unusual hidden hazard; but Jolley's foreseeability principle was not doubted.
Applied in Poppleton v Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee [2008] EWCA Civ 646, where the Court of Appeal applied Jolley when considering the breadth of foreseeable risk from gymnastics equipment.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help