Darby v National Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 182

Facts

  • Mr. Darby drowned while swimming in a lake on National Trust property, which was open and accessible to the public for recreational activities.
  • The National Trust had not installed warning signs, lifeguards, or barriers around the lake.
  • Mrs. Darby, the claimant and widow, brought a claim against the National Trust under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, asserting a breach of duty for failing to warn of the dangers associated with swimming in the lake.
  • She argued that the Trust should have recognized and addressed the risk of drowning, particularly for inexperienced swimmers.
  • The National Trust argued that drowning is an obvious risk of open water that any reasonable person would recognize, and asserted that imposing a duty to warn would create an unreasonable burden.

Issues

  1. Whether the National Trust, as occupier, owed a duty to warn visitors of the risk of drowning in the lake under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
  2. Whether the risk of drowning in open water constitutes an obvious danger such that the duty to warn or provide safety measures does not arise.
  3. Whether the absence of warning signs or additional safety measures amounted to a breach of the duty of care.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, finding no breach of duty by the National Trust.
  • The court determined the risk of drowning in open water is obvious and does not require explicit warning.
  • The decision clarified that occupiers are not required to protect visitors from risks that are part of the premises’ nature and are apparent to a reasonable visitor.
  • The court highlighted that imposing a general duty to warn against such risks would impose an unreasonable burden on occupiers.

Legal Principles

  • The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 imposes a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of visitors, but this does not extend to protecting against dangers that are obvious or part of the nature of the premises.
  • Occupiers are not insurers of safety and are not required to warn or prevent visitors from engaging with obvious hazards.
  • The law places responsibility on individuals to avoid patent risks associated with their actions.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed that occupiers are not required to warn visitors of obvious risks such as drowning in open water, clarifying the limits of liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and confirming the principle of personal responsibility for visitors engaging in activities where hazards are plainly apparent.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal