Law of Tort

BAHRIA UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD

Name : Noor ullah
Enrollment no: 01-177231-056
Submitted to: Ma’am Mahrukh Khalid
Course : LAW of Tort
Department : LLB-2B

Assignment no: 01 1
Law of Tort

Titchener v British Railways Board (1983)

Facts
Miss Titchener was a Scothish 15 year old girl, climbed through a gap in a fence onto a
railways line owned by the British Railways Board. She was hit by train. She sued the board
under the Occupiers Liability ( Scotland ) act 1960 for failing in their common duty of care to
keep the premises reasonably safe for visitors.

The inner House of th court of session held that the pursuer had taken a chance, fully aware of
the risks involved and that the Board had no responsibility to maintain the fence any more than
they had.

Issue
The court was required to weigh whether a duty was owed by the defendant to the claimant
and importantly, whether they had discharged this duty by erecting a fence to prevent the
public cutting across the railways line. In comipling the decision, the court would also have to
decide as to whether the disrepair of the fence could fall under fall under the defendant libility.

Judgment
The House of Lords dismissed the Claimant final appeal, holding that she was not owed any
duty under the Occupier Liability ( Scotland) Act 1960 on the grounds that she hd voluntarialy
decided to run the risk of walking on the railways line. As such, the defender had no duty, at
least in relation to the fence any better than they had.

Principle
In this case, the priciple of volenti non fit injuria which means to a willing person, injury is not
done.

Assignment no: 01 2