Law Case Summary
Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358
Tort law – Negligence – Trespassing
Facts
A four-year-old boy was killed as a result of being crushed by the wheel of a haulage system which belonged to a colliery company. The field in which the system was situated in was surrounded by a large hedge, which was essentially ineffective due to the large gaps in it. The grounds were used as a playground by young children, as well as a short cut to a local railway station and this was something that the colliery company was aware of and then often tried to warn them away. The father of the boy brought a claim against the company for the injury that his son sustained during the accident.
Issue
It was argued that the wheel was dangerous but appealing to children and the danger created by this was not effectively mitigated. It was important for the court to establish whether the colliery owed a duty of care to protect against the danger caused by the equipment on their site, which was not effectively guarded or, whether the child was trespassing on the land of the colliery.
Decision / Outcome
It was held by the court that the boy was effectively a trespasser on the premises of the colliery and this was done so at his own risk. Therefore, the company owed no duty to protect him or trespassers generally from harm, despite the innocence of the child’s trespass in this case. On this basis, the court found in favour of the colliery in that there was no legal duty for them to protect against the danger that the machinery created.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the facts and outcome of Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358. However, readers should be aware that the legal principle established in this case — that occupiers owe no duty of care to trespassers — has been substantially superseded in English and Scottish law.
In England and Wales, the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 now governs the duty owed to trespassers (including child trespassers), imposing a limited duty of care where the occupier is aware of a danger and knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that trespassers may come into the vicinity of it, and the risk is one against which it is reasonable to offer some protection. The 1984 Act largely reversed the harsh common law position illustrated by Addie v Dumbreck. The earlier case of British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877 had already modified the common law position prior to the Act by recognising a duty of ‘common humanity’ owed to trespassers.
Addie v Dumbreck remains historically significant as a landmark illustration of the pre-statutory common law rule and is still regularly cited in academic and teaching contexts for that purpose. However, it no longer represents the current legal position on occupiers’ liability to trespassers in the UK.
