Keith Patten welcomes useful guidance about the role of foreseeability in the determination of breach of duty of care
When a nine-year-old boy attempted to punch his younger brother in a play fight and missed, it can hardly have seemed likely that the events would end up being considered by the Court of Appeal. But such was the outcome in the recent decision of West Sussex County Council v Pierce (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1230, [2013] All ER (D) 166 (Oct). The attempted punch took place on the premises of a school, run and occupied by the defendant, to which the claimant was a lawful visitor. When his attempt to punch his brother went astray, what the claimant appears to have hit instead was the underside of a drinking water fountain, attached to an exterior wall of the school. The underside of the fountain was said to have had a sharp edge, as a result of which, it was alleged, the claimant sustained a laceration of his thumb, resulting in tendon damage which required surgical repair. The claimant appeared to have made a
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=7806223b_1)
