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?

Tucker v Somerset County Council, Trowbridge County Court, 3 January 2004

10 February 2004
The issues

Occupier’s liability – trespass – schools – duty to inspect or maintain gates.

The facts

Mr Tucker was a 54-year old Driving Instructor who injured his thumb on the 8th September 2000 at a school under the control of the Defendant. Before the new school term, a letter had been sent to all parents stating that they should not use the front gate to the school, but instead that they should use the entrance to the rear. The Claimant accepts that he probably received the letter but that he did not read it. On the day of the accident, he had rung the school to say he would be bringing his daughter in late. He was reminded to park at the rear of the school and use that entrance. The Claimant had been reluctant to do so for security reasons and on arriving he drove through the open front gates. On leaving the school, he went to shut the gate being concerned for safety reasons and on pushing the sliding bolt, caught his thumb between the bolt and the frame of the gate. After the accident a “stop” was added to prevent it happening again. The bolt was of a traditional design found on many gates throughout the country.

The decision

1. The letter sent prior to the start of the term gave the parents a conditional licence to visit the premises subject to them not using the front gate.

2. The fact that Mr Tucker had not read the letter was irrelevant.

3. Mr Tucker at the relevant time was a trespasser.

4. Under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984, the Defendant had a liability only if he was aware of the potential danger or had reasonable grounds to believe that it existed. The Defendant was not aware of any such danger and had no reasonable grounds to believe that there was. Accordingly, the Defendant was not liable.

Claim dismissed.

For further information contact Daniel Turner on danielturner@veitchpenny.co.uk.

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