The obviousness of a risk of injury on public recreational land relates to breach and not to duty, and does not extinguish or confine the duty of care owed by a statutory authority as occupier. A statutory authority controlling a public recreational facility may be required to fence off specific dangerous features to prevent use by inexperienced persons, even where the general public has unrestricted access. Following CSR v Eddy, Griffiths v Kerkemeyer damages compensate plaintiffs for the cost of services rendered to them because of their incapacity, not for the cost of services they cannot render to others, and damages for care of a plaintiff's child cannot be awarded under that head. On an appeal by way of rehearing, a separate ground of inadequate reasons is generally unnecessary and inappropriate where the appellant can challenge findings directly.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.