Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003]

Individuals take responsibility for their own activities; the occupier is not liable for injury caused during dangerous activity.

The claimant, Mr. Tomlinson (then aged 18), visited an artificial lake which was part of a country park. He dived into the water but hit his head on the sandy bottom, breaking the fifth vertebra of his neck which left him tetraplegic.
He brought proceedings against Congleton Borough Council under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, contending that the council had been in breach of the duty of care under s. 1(1) as the premises were not reasonable safe for his use as there had not been adequate warning of the dangers of diving into the lake.

The council argued that as he was not permitted to be in the lake he had ceased to be a visitor and so was not protected under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, but the claimant argued that he was covered by the 1984 Act which relates to trespassers.  He claimed for loss of quality of life, loss of earnings and also the cost of the care he would require due to his injuries.

The council contended that they had erected warning signs and implemented park ranger patrols in order to prevent people from swimming in the lake. The council eventually also began to remove the features of the lake which were attracting visitors, as there had been a number of incidents in which people had attempted to swim in the lake whilst drunk. This had all happened before Mr. Tomlinson dived into the lake.
The council said that they had discharge their duty by taking every reasonable precaution and doing evcerytthing reasonably possible to ensure the safety of visitor. They argued that it was not the lake itself that was the danger, but the actions of the public and their disregard of the warnings.
The judge found in favour of the claimant.

On appeal:
HELD: The House of Lords allowed the appeal, accepting the council’s argument because:
-    The claimant's injuries were not due to the state of the premises but to the claimant’s dangerous activity, so therefore were not in breach of the occupier’s duty of care, and
-    If the House was to decide in the claimant's favour, this would discourage the council from providing facilities for individuals to enjoy themselves. This was a ground of public policy.

This decision states that individuals bear the responsibility for their own actions, and is thus regarded a landmark case.

Citation: Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47