Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council

House of Lords
[2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 65 (H.L.)


Facts

In 1987, a boat and trailer were abandoned on the grounds of council flats (public housing) occupied by the council for the London Borough of Sutton (Council) (defendant). The boat and trailer were left exposed in an area where children played. They swiftly rotted and deteriorated. In December 1988, the Council placed a sticker on the boat, indicating that it was dangerous, should not be touched, and would be removed within seven days. Despite complaints made by residents to the Council, the boat and trailer were not removed. Justin Jolley (plaintiff) and Karl Warnham noticed the boat in the summer of 1989. In February 1990, the boys decided to repair and paint the boat so that they could use it. Jolley was 14 at the time. Using a jack and props made of other materials, the boys hoisted the boat up in order to work underneath it. Over the course of a few months, they attempted to fix holes in the hull. On April 8, 1990, Jolley was working beneath the boat when it fell onto him, breaking his back and rendering him paraplegic. The accident occurred when the boat tumbled from the jack and other props. It was not apparently caused by the boat’s derelict condition. Jolley sued the Council. After a trial, the judge found in favor of Jolley but reduced his damages by 25 percent for contributory negligence. The Court of Appeal reversed the finding of liability on the ground that the injury exceeded the scope of reasonable foreseeability because it was only foreseeable that the derelict condition of the boat would cause minor injury to children playing on it. Jolley appealed to the House of Lords.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Steyn, L.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Hoffman, Lord)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.