Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] 1 WLR 953
Tort law – Trespass – Occupiers’ liability
Facts
Keown was an eleven-year-old child who had been climbing an external fire escape, from the underside, at the defendant’s hospital trust when he fell and fractured his arm and suffered a brain injury. The fire escape was part of the hospital grounds and was used by the public for both access and was a known area where children liked to play. The trial judge held that there was a danger caused by the state of the premises in accordance with the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, section 1. He held that the claimant was two-thirds responsible. The decision was subsequently appealed.
Issues
The claim for damages was based on the fact that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 to ensure that the claimant did not suffer injuries as a result of danger on the premises. It was important to understand to what extent the child should have recognised the danger in the circumstances and the fact that he was not using the equipment as it should have been.
Decision/Outcome
The court allowed the appeal. The court held that if the claimant had been an adult, they would have found in favour of the hospital trust. The judge found that the claimant understood the risk or the fact that what he was doing was dangerous. On this basis, he did not satisfy the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984, section 1 which required there was a risk of injury of any danger caused by the state of the premises. If a person opted to climb the external fire escape improperly, thus creating the danger themselves, the health trust could not be liable.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 39, [2006] 1 WLR 953 is a Court of Appeal decision and the summary correctly reflects the outcome: the appeal was allowed on the basis that the danger arose from the claimant’s own activity (climbing the underside of the fire escape) rather than from any dangerous state of the premises, and that even as a child the claimant appreciated the risk. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 has not been amended in any material respect relevant to this case, and no subsequent Supreme Court or Court of Appeal authority has overturned or materially qualified the principles applied here. The decision continues to be cited in occupiers’ liability discussions, particularly on the distinction between dangers arising from the state of premises and dangers created by a visitor’s own conduct, and on the limits of duty owed to child trespassers. One point worth noting: the article describes the fire escape as being in an area ‘used by the public for both access’, which slightly understates the finding — the court was primarily concerned with the claimant’s use of the structure in an inherently dangerous and unintended manner. Readers should be aware that cases such as Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47 remain the leading authority on volenti and the limits of occupiers’ liability for recreational risk-taking, and that Keown is often read alongside Tomlinson.
