That hazard ought to be marked! Hold on a minute, it was!

June 27, 2010


Source: Young v. Plymouth City Council (26.02.10) Exeter Crown Court, (unreported), Zurich case

The claimant injured her foot while out walking her dogs when she trod on a 12-inch wooden marker, which had been placed in Central Park, Plymouth. She bought a claim against the council alleging a failure under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.

Mrs Young alleged that the Council owed her a duty because the area was not reasonably safe for visitors because the marker was partially concealed by the grass, and therefore its hidden nature constituted a trap.
By contrast, the Council argued that the claimant, knowing of the marker (she admitted at Court that she was probably aware of the marker at the time of the accident, and on previous visits to the park) should have taken greater care for her own safety.

The judge agreed and dismissed the claim, arguing that the marker did not present a danger to visitors and given that the marker was an obvious danger, no warning signs were necessary. This is a relief, otherwise the council would have had to have placed a marker warning of the second marker!!!

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About Kris

Associate Professor in Sports Law, Staffordshire University; British Gymnastics Senior Coach

View all posts by Kris

Follow us:

Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: