Edwards v London Borough of Sutton [2016] EWCA Civ 1005 (12 October 2016)

Edwards v London Borough of Sutton [2016] EWCA Civ 1005 (12 October 2016)

The risk posed by the low parapets of the bridge was obvious and remote, with no history of similar accidents. There was no duty to provide side barriers or warnings for such an obvious feature. The absence of prior accidents and the obviousness of the risk meant that Sutton was not in breach of its duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. The judge below set the standard too high; the appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 1005
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Christopher Edwards; Defendant/appellant: London Borough of Sutton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, Duty of Care, Obvious Dangers, Risk Assessment, Contributory Negligence, Standard of Care, Public Liability, Structural Safety Standards
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 Duty of Care Obvious Dangers Risk Assessment Contributory Negligence +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Edwards

Claimant/respondent

London Borough of Sutton

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant local authority was liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 for injuries sustained by the claimant after falling from a bridge in a public park
  2. 2 Whether the absence of side barriers or warning signs constituted a breach of duty
  3. 3 Whether the risk was sufficiently foreseeable and significant to require preventative measures

Ratio Decidendi

The risk posed by the low parapets of the bridge was obvious and remote, with no history of similar accidents. There was no duty to provide side barriers or warnings for such an obvious feature. The absence of prior accidents and the obviousness of the risk meant that Sutton was not in breach of its duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. The judge below set the standard too high; the appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant set aside.
  • Judgment entered for the defendant (London Borough of Sutton).