Legal Case Brief
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44
Tort law – Negligence – Causation
Facts
The father of a seven-year-old boy sued the Glasgow Corporation for damages following the death of his son who died as a result of eating berries from a poisonous plant that was growing in the Botanic Gardens in Glasgow. The gardens were open to the public and managed by the defendant. The father argued that the defendants allowed children to pass through their grounds frequently yet did not take any action to warn or alleviate the danger caused by the poisonous plant to children. The plant was enclosed by a wooden fence which was open to the public and easily accessed by children.
Issues
The question for the court was whether this raised any grounds of appeal for there to be a trial against the defendants for their liability. It was important for the court to consider in this case whether the defendant was negligent in the death of the claimant. It was particularly important to understand the steps that the defendant had taken to prevent the danger caused by the fact that the poisonous berries in question would be particularly attractive to young children.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that the Glasgow Corporation was liable in this instance. They had permitted children to go on to the land and it is understandable that the berries would have appealed to visiting children, thus representing a danger. The defendants were aware of this danger caused by the poisonous berries and did nothing to prevent the damage. On this basis, the action was required to proceed to trial.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case brief accurately describes the facts and outcome of Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44. The case remains good law as a foundational authority in occupiers’ liability, particularly in establishing the principle that an occupier owes a heightened duty of care to child visitors where an allurement or trap exists on the land.
Readers should note that the general law of occupiers’ liability in Scotland and England and Wales has since been codified. In England and Wales, the position for lawful visitors is now governed by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, and for trespassers by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. In Scotland, the Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 applies. These statutes did not abolish the relevance of earlier common law cases such as this one; Glasgow Corporation v Taylor continues to be cited in academic and judicial discussion of the duty owed to child visitors and the allurement principle. However, students should ensure they apply the statutory framework when answering problem questions on occupiers’ liability rather than relying solely on the pre-statutory common law.
The article’s classification of the case under ‘Tort law – Negligence – Causation’ is a minor inaccuracy in emphasis: the case is more precisely concerned with occupiers’ liability and the allurement doctrine than with causation as such. This does not affect the substance of the brief but students should be aware of its correct doctrinal context.
