Cooper v Southern Portland Cement Ltd [1972] HCA 28

Cooper v Southern Portland Cement Ltd [1972] HCA 28

The High Court held (majority) that the respondent, having created a situation of extreme danger to children (placing high voltage wires within reach of children on a sandhill that was attractive to them), and knowing or being able to expect children would frequent the area, owed a duty of care to take reasonable steps to protect them. The presence of an allurement and the serious but hidden danger placed upon the occupier a duty to act, even if the child was technically a trespasser, and there was evidence upon which the jury could find a breach of that duty. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the jury verdict restored.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia, Appeal From Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
["occupier's Liability" 'liability to Trespassers' 'negligence' 'duty of Care' 'personal Injuries']
['tort Law'] ["occupier's Liability" 'liability to Trespassers' 'negligence' 'duty of Care' 'personal Injuries']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia, Appeal From Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the occupier of land (respondent) can be held liable in negligence to a trespasser (appellant) injured on the land in circumstances involving an attractive nuisance or allurement and a concealed danger.' 'Whether knowledge or expectation of presence of children creates a duty of care owed by the occupier to trespassing children.' 'Whether the relationship of occupier and trespasser is displaced by a larger duty to safeguard from highly dangerous situations created on land.']

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held (majority) that the respondent, having created a situation of extreme danger to children (placing high voltage wires within reach of children on a sandhill that was attractive to them), and knowing or being able to expect children would frequent the area, owed a duty of care to take reasonable steps to protect them. The presence of an allurement and the serious but hidden danger placed upon the occupier a duty to act, even if the child was technically a trespasser, and there was evidence upon which the jury could find a breach of that duty. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the jury verdict restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal Division, set aside' "Order that the jury's verdict in favour of the appellant be restored" "Respondent to pay appellant's costs"]