Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Herrington v BRB

[1972] AC 877

Case summary last updated at 18/01/2020 15:29 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Herrington v BRB

D 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 P, a child, was injured by the live wire when trespassing on the railway. HL held that D 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. 

Herrington v BRB crops up in following areas of law