0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Kidd v Portsmouth City Council, Court of Appeal, 14 January 2004

22 January 2004
The issues

Occupiers liability – trip – community garden – play area.

The facts

The Claimant was a 10 year-old child who had been playing in a community garden provided by Portsmouth City Council. She tripped on the path and fell onto the garden gate’s open catch, causing an injury which resulted in her losing her sight in her left eye. She sued the Local Authority, alleging breach of statutory duty under Section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and arguing that the substance of which the path had been made (compacted hoggin, a clay and crushed flint mix) was unsuitable for a place where children played, or that it had not been compacted property. Evidence was before the Judge that in childrens play areas the Defendant normally provided soft-surfaced areas or paths made out of tarmac or flagstone and that hoggin was normally laid in large environmental areas mainly used for walking. The Judge found that the Claimant had tripped on a stone in the path but found that the path had been in a satisfactory state. The Judge further found that the community garden was not a playground and whilst it was an enclosed space that was used by children, it was also used by adults and those visiting a nearby care home. The Judge found for the Defendant. The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. The Judge had concluded that the special standards, which applied to surfaces and playgrounds, did not apply to the community garden merely because children played there.

2. Whilst the tarmac surface might have reduced the risk of children tripping, whether there was a duty on the Defendant to have used tarmac was a matter of fact and degree.

3. Whilst the Defendant had to be aware that children were less careful than adults, there was no basis for arguing in this case that the Judge had imposed the wrong standard of care.

Appeal dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up