Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44
1. Court:
House of Lords (United Kingdom)
2. Facts:
Glasgow Corporation (the local authority) owned and maintained a public park.
In the park, there were berry-bearing plants (a type of shrub) that were poisonous if ingested.
A 7-year-old child, Taylor, was allowed by her parents to visit the park.
The child ate some berries from the poisonous plants and unfortunately died.
The child’s parents sued Glasgow Corporation, alleging negligence in allowing poisonous berries to be accessible in a public place frequented by children.
The issue was whether the Corporation was liable for the child’s death, considering the child was a trespasser or visitor.
3. Legal Issues:
Does the local authority owe a duty of care to children who visit a public park and are injured by naturally occurring dangers (poisonous berries)?
Can the doctrine of “attractive nuisance” be applied here, meaning whether the Corporation should have anticipated that children might be attracted to the berries?
What is the extent of the occupier’s liability towards child visitors?
To what extent is the occupier liable for injuries caused by natural conditions on their property?
4. Judgment:
The House of Lords held Glasgow Corporation liable for the child’s death.
It was held that the Corporation, as an occupier of the land, owed a special duty of care to children visiting the park.
The poisonous berries were deemed to be an “attractive nuisance”—something that might attract children and pose a danger.
The Corporation should have taken reasonable steps to warn or protect against the danger, or remove the hazard altogether.
It was not a defense that the berries were part of the natural environment; what mattered was that the danger was foreseeable and preventable.
The case emphasized the special protection owed to children, who may not appreciate risks as adults do.
5. Legal Principles Established:
Occupier’s Liability towards Children: Occupiers owe a higher standard of care to child visitors because children are less likely to recognize dangers.
Attractive Nuisance Doctrine: An occupier can be held liable if there is something on the premises that is likely to attract children and cause injury.
Foreseeability of Harm: Liability depends on whether the harm was foreseeable and whether the occupier failed to take reasonable precautions.
Liability for Natural Conditions: Even natural conditions can give rise to liability if they pose a foreseeable risk to children.
6. Related Case Law:
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955) | Occupier not liable where parents’ supervision was negligent. |
| The Wagon Mound (No. 1) (1961) | Liability limited to foreseeable damage. |
| British Railways Board v Herrington (1972) | Duty of care owed to trespassing children. |
| Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) | General principle of duty of care and negligence. |
7. Significance:
The case is a landmark in occupier’s liability law, particularly highlighting the protection owed to child visitors.
It expanded the scope of duty of care beyond artificial hazards to natural conditions on premises.
It laid the groundwork for the attractive nuisance doctrine in UK law and other common law jurisdictions.
It demonstrates that public authorities can be held responsible for maintaining safe environments in public parks and spaces, especially for children.
The decision stresses the importance of foreseeability and reasonable precaution in negligence claims involving occupiers.
8. Summary Table:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Facts | Child died after eating poisonous berries in public park owned by Corporation |
| Issue | Liability of occupier for injuries to child visitors caused by natural hazards |
| Held | Corporation liable; owed duty of care to children; attractive nuisance doctrine applied |
| Legal Principles | Occupier’s liability, attractive nuisance, foreseeability of harm, special protection to children |
| Significance | Landmark case on occupier’s liability and child protection in negligence law |
RELATED Blog
0 comments