Herrington v BRB [1972] AC 877

• Defendant failed to maintain the fence by their railway line and were told of children trespassing through the hole and playing near the tracks.

• They didn’t repair the fence and Plaintiff, a child, was injured by the live wire when trespassing on the railway.

• HL held that Defendant was liable. 

Lord Reid

• The test of an occupier's duty to a trespasser is subjective, since the trespasser forces a 'neighbour' relationship on him.

• His liability depends on whether in the circumstances a conscientious humane man, with his knowledge skill and resources, could reasonably have been expected to do or refrain from doing before the accident something which would have avoided it.

• An impecunious occupier with little assistance at hand would often be excused from doing something which a large organisation with ample staff would be expected to do.