| Parker v British Airways Board | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Full case name | Parker v British Airways Board |
| Decided | 21 December 1981 |
| Citations |
|
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | County Court |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | |
Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 is an English property law case ordered by the Court of Appeal.
A passenger named Parker discovered a gold bracelet on the floor of an executive lounge at Heathrow airport. He handed it to the owners of the land (British Airways Board) in order to search for the original owner, requesting that the item be returned to him should they fail to do so. When British Airways Board sold the unclaimed bracelet for £850, Mr Parker sued for damages, challenging their claim to the bracelet. During the first instance he was successful, and was awarded £850 as damages along with £50 as interest.
The judgment of Lord Donaldson begins the facts in a rather poetic manner:
On 15 November 1978, the plaintiff, Alan George Parker, had a date with fate - and perhaps with legal immortality. He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. And that is not all he found. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor.
We know very little about the plaintiff, and it would be nice to know more. He was lawfully in the lounge and, as events showed, he was an honest man. Clearly he had not forgotten the schoolboy maxim "Finders keepers." But, equally clearly, he was well aware of the adult qualification "unless the true owner claims the article". [1]
The court upheld Mr Parker's claim, as the bracelet was noticed in an area frequented by the public that British Airways Board did not exercise sufficient jurisdiction upon. British Airways Board were thus unable to assert superior title over the bracelet. [2]
Donaldson LJ held that this was a case of "finders keepers".
The defendants could not assert any title to the bracelet based upon the rights of an occupier over chattels attached to a building. Here, the bracelet was laying on the floor.
There was no sufficient manifestation of any intention of the defendant to exercise control over lost property before it was found, which would otherwise give the defendants a right superior to that of the plaintiff or indeed any right over the bracelet. [1]
The judgement laid out clear rules for both the Finder, and the Occupier of the Premises:
 | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2011) |
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.
Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.
Finders, keepers, sometimes extended as the children's rhyme finders, keepers; losers, weepers, is an English adage with the premise that when something is unowned or abandoned, whoever finds it first can claim it for themself permanently. The phrase relates to an ancient Roman law of similar meaning and has been expressed in various ways over the centuries. The 1982 English Court of Appeal case Parker v British Airways Board expanded the phrase, with the judgement of Donaldson L.J. declaring "Finders keepers, unless the true owner claims the article". Difficulties arise when exploring how best to define when exactly something is unowned or abandoned, which can lead to legal or ethical disputes, especially as jurisdictions often differ in their approach.
In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law that the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.
A treasure trove is an amount of money or coin, gold, silver, plate, or bullion found hidden underground or in places such as cellars or attics, where the treasure seems old enough for it to be presumed that the true owner is dead and the heirs undiscoverable. An archaeological find of treasure trove is known as a hoard. The legal definition of what constitutes treasure trove and its treatment under law vary considerably from country to country, and from era to era.
Trover is a form of lawsuit in common law jurisdictions for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property. Trover belongs to a series of remedies for such wrongful taking, its distinctive feature being recovery only for the value of whatever was taken, not for the recovery of the property itself.
In property law, lost, mislaid, and abandoned property are categories of the common law of property which deals with personal property or chattel which has left the possession of its rightful owner without having directly entered the possession of another person. Property can be considered lost, mislaid, or abandoned depending on the circumstances under which it is found by the next party who obtains its possession.
Anns v Merton London Borough Council[1977] UKHL 4, [1978] AC 728 was a decision of the House of Lords that established a broad test for determining the existence of a duty of care in the tort of negligence, called the Anns test or sometimes the two-stage test for true third-party negligence. The case was overruled by Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991].
Volenti non fit iniuria is a Roman legal maxim and common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict. Volenti applies only to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to his opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of boxing. Volenti is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk".
Premises liability is the liability that a landowner or occupier has for certain torts that occur on their land.
Occupiers' liability is a field of tort law, codified in statute, which concerns the duty of care owed by those who occupy real property, through ownership or lease, to people who visit or trespass. It deals with liability that may arise from accidents caused by the defective or dangerous condition of the premises. In English law, occupiers' liability towards visitors is regulated in the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. In addition, occupiers' liability to trespassers is provided under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. Although the law largely codified the earlier common law, the difference between a "visitor" and a "trespasser", and the definition of an "occupier" continue to rely on cases for their meaning.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that covers occupiers' liability for trespassers. In British Railways Board v Herrington 1972 AC 877, the House of Lords had decided that occupiers owed a duty to trespassers, but the exact application of the decision was unclear. The matter was then referred to the Law Commission for a report, and as a result the Occupiers' Liability Bill was introduced to Parliament by Lord Hailsham on 23 June 1983. The Act was given the royal assent on 13 March 1984 as the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 and came into force on 13 May.
Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". In England and Wales, it is a tort of strict liability. Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion. In those jurisdictions that recognise it, criminal conversion is a lesser crime than theft/larceny.
Thomas Haslem v. William A. Lockwood, Connecticut, (1871) is an important United States case in property, tort, conversion, trover and nuisance law.
Scots property law governs the rules relating to property found in the legal jurisdiction of Scotland. As a hybrid legal system with both common law and civil law heritage, Scots property law is similar, but not identical, to property law in South Africa and the American state of Louisiana.
Hannah v. Peel, 1 K.B. 509, was a 1945 English legal case decided in the King's Bench Division of the High Court. The court held that the owner of the locus in quo does not have a superior right to possession over the finder of lost property that is unattached to the land.
Marcic v Thames Water plc [2003] UKHL 66 is a UK enterprise law and English tort law case, concerning water in the UK.
In criminal and property law, theft by finding occurs when someone chances upon an object which seems abandoned and takes possession of the object, but fails to take steps to establish whether the object is genuinely abandoned and not merely lost or unattended before taking it for themselves. In some jurisdictions, the crime is called "larceny by finding" or "stealing by finding".
Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd [2005] IESC 2 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court that confirmed that under Section 4 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 an occupier of land is not required to take all reasonable care to safeguard the person or property of either trespassers or recreational users.