Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003]: A Landmark Case in Understanding Risk, Responsibility and Agency in Personal Injury Claims

Sharing is caring!

In personal injury law, one of the most important questions is where responsibility lies when someone is injured in a public place. Does the occupier of land owe an absolute duty to prevent harm, or must individuals accept a degree of personal responsibility for obvious risks?

The House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) addressed these issues in the landmark case of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003], a decision that continues to shape how courts approach occupiers’ liability and personal injury claims today.

In this article, we explain the facts of the case, the legal principles established and what the decision means for people considering a claim following an accident.

The Background to Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council

The case arose from an accident at Brereton Heath Country Park, owned and managed by Congleton Borough Council. The park contained a lake, which was clearly marked as unsuitable for swimming. Warning signs were displayed, and the Council had previously taken steps to discourage swimming, such as removing its more ‘attractive’ features like its sandy beach front, placing warning signs in around the water and creating treeline barriers to prevent easy accessibility into the quarry. 

Despite these warnings, Mr Tomlinson entered the lake on a hot day and dived into shallow water, suffering a serious spinal injury that left him paralysed for life. He brought a claim against the Council, alleging that they had failed in their duty as occupiers to make the lake safe or prevent access to it.

The Legal Framework: Occupiers’ Liability

Mr Tomlinson’s claim was brought under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, which governs the duty owed by occupiers to non-visitors, such as trespassers. The Act requires occupiers to take reasonable steps to prevent injury where:

1. They are aware of a danger
2. They know or have reasonable grounds to believe someone may encounter it
3. The risk is one against which they may reasonably be expected to offer protection

The central issue was whether the Council had breached this duty by failing to remove the danger or prevent access to the lake.

The House of Lords’ Decision

Although lower courts had found the Council to be liable to differing extents, on the Council’s final appeal to the highest court at the time, the House of Lords, Mr Tomlinson’s claim was ultimately rejected. In doing so, the court made a number of important observations about risk, responsibility and the purpose of occupiers’ liability law.

Lord Hoffmann, delivering the leading judgment, emphasised that the law does not exist to protect people from obvious dangers arising from their own choices. The risk of diving into open water was clear, and Mr Tomlinson had voluntarily chosen to take that risk.

The court held that:

• The danger was not the lake itself, but the claimant’s decision to dive into it
• The risk was obvious and inherent
• The Council had taken reasonable steps by providing warnings
• Occupiers are not required to eliminate all risks, particularly those arising from personal behaviour

Importantly, the court warned against imposing an excessive burden on landowners that would lead to defensive practices and the unnecessary restriction of public spaces.

Key Legal Principles Established

Tomlinson is now a leading authority on the limits of occupiers’ liability. The case confirmed several key principles that are regularly applied in personal injury claims:

• The law does not require occupiers to protect against obvious risks
• Individuals must take responsibility for their own actions
• A balance must be struck between safety and personal freedom
• Social utility and common sense are relevant considerations

The decision marked a clear shift away from a culture of automatic blame and reinforced the importance of reasonableness in personal injury law.

What Tomlinson Does Not Mean

While Tomlinson is often cited by defendants, it does not mean that occupiers can ignore safety altogether. The duty to take reasonable care remains, particularly where:

• The danger is hidden or not obvious
• The injured person is a child or vulnerable adult
• No warnings or preventative measures are in place
• The risk arises from a man-made hazard rather than a natural feature

Each case is highly fact-specific, and Tomlinson does not provide a blanket defence to all occupiers’ liability claims.

Practical Impact on Personal Injury Claims

For claimants, Tomlinson highlights the importance of understanding how courts assess foreseeability, obvious risk and personal responsibility. Claims are more likely to succeed where:

• The risk was not obvious
• The injured person could not reasonably protect themselves
• The occupier failed to take proportionate and sensible safety measures

For defendants, the case provides reassurance that the law recognises the need for realism and balance.

Our Personal Injury team regularly advises clients on both sides of this legal divide, assessing whether Tomlinson is likely to assist or undermine any potential claim.

How Our Personal Injury Team Uses Tomlinson in Practice

At our firm, we draw on leading case law, such as Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council, to provide clear and realistic advice from the outset. When investigating personal injury claims, we consider:

• The nature of the alleged hazard
• Whether the risk was obvious or concealed
• The conduct of the injured person
• The steps taken by the occupier to manage the risk

This approach allows us to identify strong claims early, challenge weak defences and advise clients honestly about prospects of success.

Summary

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council remains a cornerstone of present-day occupiers’ liability law. It reinforces that personal injury law is not about eliminating all risk, but about imposing reasonable duties where they are justified.

For individuals who have been injured, the case underlines the importance of early legal advice. Understanding how courts apply principles of risk and responsibility can be decisive in determining whether a claim is viable.

Our experienced Personal Injury team has extensive experience in claims involving accidents in public spaces, recreational areas and privately owned land. If you have suffered an injury and are unsure where responsibility lies, we can provide clear and practical advice tailored to your circumstances.

Contact us on 01270254064 or email us via enquiries@steplegal.co.uk to start your journey in securing justice and accountability today.