British Railways Board v Herrington
Rule established
An occupier owes a duty of 'common humanity' even to trespassers; the old rule of no duty to trespassers (Addie v Dumbreck) was departed from.
Facts
- A six-year-old child was badly injured on an electrified railway line after entering through a gap in a broken fence on railway land
- The child was technically a trespasser
- The railway knew the fence was broken and that children played nearby
Issue
- Whether an occupier of land owes any duty of care to a trespasser, particularly a child, where the occupier knows of the danger and the likelihood of trespass.
Held
- The House of Lords departed from the old rule in Addie v Dumbreck (1929) that an occupier owed no duty to trespassers except not to injure them intentionally or recklessly
- An occupier owes a duty of "common humanity" to trespassers where:
- The occupier knows of the presence or likelihood of trespassers
- The danger is serious
- The occupier has the means to eliminate or reduce the danger
Ratio Decidendi
An occupier owes a duty of common humanity to trespassers: not the full common duty of care, but an obligation to take reasonable steps where the occupier knows of both the danger and the likelihood of trespass, particularly involving children.
How to use it in an exam
- Part A: Departing from Addie v Dumbreck (1929); evolution toward a duty even to trespassers.
- Part B: Pair with Indermaur v Dames (1866) to show the full hierarchy: invitees (full duty) > licensees > trespassers (common humanity).
- Key line: "An occupier owes a duty of 'common humanity' to trespassers where the danger is serious and the occupier knows of the likelihood of trespass."
Source
Source: [1972] Appeal Cases 877
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.