Per Scrutton LJ: When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters, you invite him to use the staircase in the ordinary way in which it is used.

A 14 year old boy, suffered a serious spine injury because he finds a disused boat on the defendants land, which he decides he can repair and use later. While the repairs happen the boat falls on his back and causes serious injury. It was said that is was not reasonably foreseeable that the accident would be caused. The House of Lords however said, that this play was no different, as all 14 year old boys would be doing so. Play can take place by mimicking adult behaviour, and it was foreseeable that personal injury would be caused, no matter to what extent it would be. The occupier was liable because it was his responsibility to remove the boat of his land. There was a duty under the Occupier’s of Land Act which was breached by the occupier. 

This lady slipped on a pool of water next to a Jacuzzi despite there being non slip tiles around. She claimed that that water should have been cleaned up earlier. In this case they said that the evidential burden was on the claimant to prove that the water was there for a longer time. She wasn’t able to prove that.

The claimant was attempting a jump from a wall to wall for the first time. He fell head first on the matting and became permanently paralysed after the accident. Should the matting be more extensive to ensure that the visitors were safe? It was said that there needs to be a greater level of supervision and that more information about the risks involved in the activity before. They said that the claimant is an adult that was consenting to the activity out of his own free will which makes the owners less liable but in case of the supervision it was quite obvious that no matter the amount of matting would prevent him from absolute injury.

Here the 15 year old slips on the floor and sues her school. She slipped on an area of water that couldn’t be there for very long, during the break. Should the school have a better system in place for mopping up water. They said that 15 year old girls could see the risk of the water and found in favour of the school.  

per Justice Devlin- However, the law recognises that ‘it would not be socially desirable if parents were, as a matter of course, able to shift the burden of looking after their children from their own shoulders to those of persons who happen to have accessible bits of land’;

The boy cut his thumb open while trying to hit his brother. There needs to be an easily foreseeable harm and this type of harm wasn’t easy to predict.

Here, lift plunged to the ground with the claimant still insdie it. The claimants sued the firm, saying that they hired a company who they believed were reasonably competent for this job. Because the occupier has done all that a reasonable person could do to ensure the safety of the elevator. The contractor was fully liable as the occupier satisfied the requirements imposed by s.2(4)(b) of the 1957 Act. 

The council was entitled to rely upon contractors as the experts to carry out a proper inspection. Here the claimant was using a machine in the gym, but in malfunctioned while he was using it and got injured. He has a contract to be there under occupier’s liability. The question was, has the machine been adequately maintained by the company, should the council be able to rely on the independent contractors or should they have done more to find out? It was held that they had no reason to suggest that the council had any notice that the inspection was inadequate.

Premises were, thus, reasonably safe for wheelchair users; use the ramp to get up but used the stairs to get down. Has the occupier done enough to ensure her safety and has there been enough in case of warnings to show that these are steps. It was ruled that the metal edgings were enough for the woman to see that she should have taken another exit. 

The occupier knew that the children played on their premises. The children played on an external fire escape of a hospital. He was using it as a climbing frame as you would in a park. A boy unfortunately fell 30 feet and the question was whether the hospital would be liable for his injuries. Is the fire escape something that is dangerous on the premises? No, it’s needed for a case if there was a fire. The boy chose to use a reasonable safe premises in a dangerous way.

Two children were walking on the premises of an abandoned house that was in danger of collapsing. A duty was established but it was held that the council did not breach their duty, because they have boarded the windows up with metal bars, the premises have been inspected one a day, and there were 8ft high metal fences (sufficient to prevent trespasses). The suggestion was that there should be guards standing by the property which was said to be excessive.