Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1082
Judgement for the case Jolley v Sutton LBC
Table Of Contents
Defendant knew of a boat beside a block of flats and made plans to remove it which were never implemented. Plaintiffs (children) played in it and the boat, which was rotten, collapsed causing them injuries.
-
HL allowed Plaintiffs’ 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 Defendant’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.
For Further Study on Jolley v Sutton LBC
These are detailed case summaries (excerpts from cases - not paraphrase...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Commercial Remedies BCL | Cory V. Thames Ironworks Notes (3 pages) |
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.