The Relevant Legal Background in Judgments - Case Study Example

In the case of Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 39, the claimant was a young boy Martyn Keown who climbed up a fire escape in the Trust building and fell from the flight consequently fracturing his arm and suffering from a significant brain injury leading to loss of intellectual functioning. Keown also suffered from changes in their brain that led him to be convicted of several sexual offenses later in his life. The claimant stated that as the premises had no suggestion that the fire escape was fragile, the claimant suffered his injuries because of the poor state of the premises. The NHS Trust which owned the property pointed out that Mr. Keown could be treated as a trespasser when he climbed the fire escape. Considering the danger of the state of the premises, the Trust was asked to pay a third of the damages to the claimant and the Trust appealed. The Trust placed its defense that the fire escape was not by itself dangerous and Justice Lewinson ruled that there was no reason for any danger due to the state of the premises and thus the claimant’s appeal failed.

Legal Background and Main Issues –

The relevant cases cited to provide a judgment on this case include Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd [2003] QB 1008, [2003] EWCA Civ 231 in which a young adult had dived into Folkestone harbor after midnight in mid-winter and struck his head on an underwater pile. The court ruled that some features within certain premises are not inherently dangerous but may tempt a person on the land to indulge in an activity with a risk of injury. In this case, Kweon, although the premises were not dangerous, his actions seem to have caused him personal harm. Another case that could be cited is the Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] 2 WLR 1120, [2002] EWCA Civ 309 case in which a young adult had similarly received severe injuries by diving this time into a stretch of water on open land when the water only came up to his knees. The judgment as given by Lord Phillips pointed out the fact that the "state of the premises" could not be identified in this case and could not be considered as posing a danger that carried with it the risk of the injury suffered by Mr. Tomlinson the injured claimant. The main issues of the case would thus relate to the state of the premises as opposed to inherent risks or dangers of the state of the premises and the judge ruled that as long as there is no inherent danger in the state of the premises, the claimant cannot file for damages. Read More