Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47

Court: House of Lords

Facts: In 1995, John Tomlinson, an 18-year-old, visited an artificial lake in a Cheshire country park. Ignoring signs prohibiting diving, he dove into the lake, struck his head on the sandy bottom, and was left tetraplegic. Tomlinson sued Congleton Borough Council under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, alleging that the lake was not reasonably safe and that the council had failed to adequately warn of the dangers associated with diving.

The council argued that Tomlinson had disregarded clear warnings and that he was not an invited visitor to the lake once he entered it, as it was explicitly marked as out of bounds.

Issue: Whether Congleton Borough Council owed a duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 to Tomlinson, and whether they were liable for the injuries he sustained.

Held: The House of Lords ruled in favour of Congleton Borough Council. The court held that Tomlinson’s injuries resulted from his own actions rather than the condition of the premises. The judgment highlighted that the council did not owe a duty to ensure that Tomlinson was protected from the inherent risks associated with diving into the lake.

The ruling emphasized the principle of personal responsibility, noting that Tomlinson’s decision to dive was inherently risky and not due to any dangerous condition of the premises. The House of Lords also considered public policy implications, expressing concerns that imposing liability on the council could discourage the provision of recreational facilities and lead to excessively stringent safety measures.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Hoffmann stated, "It was not the state of the premises that caused the injury. Mr. Tomlinson chose to engage in an activity with inherent risks and the Council cannot be held liable for injuries resulting from such personal decisions."

💡 LevelUpLaw: Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council reinforces the importance of personal responsibility in negligence claims. The House of Lords ruled that the council was not liable for Tomlinson’s injuries because they resulted from his own risky behavior rather than from the state of the premises. The decision aims to balance the need for public safety with the encouragement of recreational facilities, avoiding excessive restrictions that could stifle public enjoyment. This case reflects a judicial stance against what was perceived as a growing compensation culture, promoting personal accountability and discouraging overly litigious claims for accidents involving personal risk.