Perry v Butlins Holiday World [1997]

A holiday park owed a duty of care to visitors in respect of the construction of a brick wall near an area used for children’s shows.

A guest staying at a holiday park suffered a severe cut when he fell on a low brick wall surrounding a restaurant on the holiday park site. The wall was near an open area, where shows were held for children. At a later date a stage was erected on that area. The guest brought an action based upon breach of the common law duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, contending that the extremely sharp engineering bricks used in construction of the wall were unsuitable and potentially dangerous in an area where young children were expected to be present.
The court heard expert evidence that materials other than engineering building blocks, or with a rounded edge, could have been used in the design and construction of the wall. It was said that in designing the wall it would have been sensible to take account of the fact that it was in an area that was likely to be used by large numbers of children.
The judge found in favour of the claimant, and the holiday park appealed.

HELD: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The park was in breach of the duty of care in s. 2(2) Occupiers’ Liability Act, as s. 2(3) specifically provides that the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. Although the park had argued that the area by the wall was not a designated play area, the park had had reason to anticipate that children would be present in that area.
The Court held that the case had been borderline, but the jusge had been correnct to decide in the claimant’s favour because:
-    the wall was very low and was therefore of greater danger to very young children, as they are generally particularly small;
-    the edge was hard and sharp enough to have cut through the claimant’s ear, but it could have been made of rubber or had rounded edges, and
-    the particular presence of children watching the shows put on for them, together with the sharp edges of the wall and its low height was a dangerous combination.
The defendant had therefore failed to take reasonable care.


Citation: Perry v Butlins Holiday World [1997] EGCS 171