Staples v West Dorset District Council [1995] 93 LGR 536
Tort law – Negligence – Duty of care
Facts
The defendant occupied the Cobb at Lyme Regis which was a wall from which the public could gain access to the promenade. It sloped into the sea and at the time of the case, had algae growing on this. The plaintiff slipped on the algae, fell and suffered serious injuries as a result of the accident. The plaintiff claimed to sue the defendant on the basis that there should have been an applicable signing, warning of the danger. There had been no accidents in its long history but the defendant presented a sign following the claimant’s fall. At the initial trial, the judge found in the plaintiff’s favour to which the defendant appealed.
Issue
During the trial, the plaintiff stated that he had noticed the algae was slimy and wet and could foresee that this could be slippery. On this basis, it was important for the court to establish whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care in the circumstances under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
Held
The court allowed the appeal of the defendant on the basis that a warning on a sign would not have informed the plaintiff of new information. The duty that was owed to the plaintiff by the defendant under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 was a duty to warn a visitor to the nature and extent of a risk if he was unaware. In this case, the plaintiff acknowledged that he was aware of the risk and stood on the algae nonetheless.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Staples v West Dorset District Council (1995) 93 LGR 536 is a Court of Appeal decision and the outcome described — that the defendant’s appeal was allowed because a warning sign would have added nothing to what the claimant already knew — correctly reflects the judgment. The article accurately identifies the relevant statute as the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, which remains in force and unamended in the respects relevant to this case. The principle that an occupier’s duty to warn under the 1957 Act does not extend to warning a visitor of a risk of which that visitor is already aware continues to represent good law and has been applied consistently in subsequent occupiers’ liability cases. No subsequent legislation or case law has materially altered this position. Readers should note that where a visitor is unaware of a risk, the duty to warn remains a live question to be assessed on the facts of each case.
