To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Titchener v British Rlys Board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Titchener v British Railways Board
CourtHouse of Lords
Decided24 Nov 1983
Citation(s)1984 SC (HL) 34; [1983] UKHL 10; [1983] 3 All ER 770; [1983] 1 WLR 1427; 1984 SLT 192; SC (HL) 34
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingLord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, Lord Chancellor and Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Keywords
Torts, Negligence

Titchener v British Railway Board [1983] 1 WLR 1427 is a Scottish delict case concerning occupiers' liability, decided by the House of Lords.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    470
  • Volenti non fit injuria

Transcription

Facts

Miss Titchener, a 15-year-old girl, climbed through a gap in a fence onto a railway line owned by the British Railways Board. She was hit by a train. She sued the board under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 for failing in their common duty of care to keep the premises reasonably safe for visitors.

The Inner House of the Court of Session held that the pursuer had taken a chance, fully aware of the risks involved and that the Board had no responsibility to maintain the fence any more than they had.[2]

Judgment

The House of Lords dismissed the claimant's final appeal, holding that she was not owed any duty under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 on the grounds that she had voluntarily decided to run the risk of walking on the railway line. As such, the defender had no duty, at least in relation to the pursuer, to maintain the fence any better than they had, based on the principle of volenti non fit injuria.

Other cases

The following cases were referred to in this judgment:

  • Slater v Clay Cross Co Ltd—distinguished

See also

References

  1. ^ "Negligence - 1980- 1984". Retrieved 21 January 2012.
  2. ^ Mark Lunney, Ken Oliphant, Tort Law: Text and Materials (OUP, 2008) 286, ISBN 9780199211364


This page was last edited on 18 December 2023, at 22:24
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.