Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Billings v Riden

[1958] AC 240

Case summary last updated at 18/01/2020 16:07 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Billings v Riden

D was doing work to the front of a house, next door to one occupied by X, blocking the main entrance to X’s house, so that they only left a dangerous alternative route. P, a visitor, was injured while using this dangerous alternative route, and HL allowed her claim of negligence against D (minus contributory negligence since she had declined help on the route). 
Lord Somervell: owed a duty to all who might be expected lawfully to visit the house to take reasonable care to ensure that they were not exposed to danger. Where P was aware of the danger but, in all the circumstances, a reasonable person would have risked incurring it, the contractors were not absolved from liability either by giving a warning or by reliance on the respondent's knowledge. In considering what a reasonable person would realize or would do in a particular situation, “reasonable” does not necessarily equal what the majority of people would have done. 
Lord Cohen (others agree): It is irrelevant that D would not have had a right to put up warnings/fencing along the dangerous route in X’s property since it was they who caused the initial danger by blocking the main entrance. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>