D knew of a boat beside a block of flats and made plans to remove it which were never implemented. Ps (children) played in it and the boat, which was rotten, collapsed causing them injuries. HL allowed Ps’ claim. The council had conceded that it had a duty to remove the boat, but claimed that only minor injuries were foreseeable from the rotten planking giving way. HL held that since the means by which injury was reasonably foreseeable, an injury of a greater extent but of the same type (the type being injury from planking giving way) came within the scope of D’s duty of care.
Lord Steyn: He denies that the manner of the injury nor the extent of the injury had to be reasonably foreseeable. Only the type of injury had to be reasonably foreseeable.
