Blood, Sweets, and Tears... The Liability of Willy Wonka

The other day I was scrolling through Instagram when I saw a meme about how Roald Dahl's character, Willy Wonka, was never held accountable for how 80% of the children who visited his factory ended up injured. It got me thinking... could the children, or their parents, sue Willy Wonka under the tort law of negligence and, more specifically, occupiers' liability?

Of course, all rights are reserved to Roald Dahl and the respective parties for the film adaptations. Here, we will be referencing the Tim Burton adaptation solely, as this was all I had to hand when researching this blog post.

Firstly, the law of occupiers' liability comes under two statutes: the Occupiers' Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 - the former governs visitors, and the latter governs trespassers. For the purposes of this area of law, an 'occupier' refers to someone who has "a sufficient degree of control over the premises," according to Lord Denning in Wheat v Lacon. It is undeniable that, as the owner and operator of the chocolate factory, Mr. Wonka fits the definition of an occupier, and so falls under both of these statutes. Initially, it is safe to assume that all of the children entered the factory as visitors, bringing their potential claims under the 1957 law, but there is the risk that, through their own actions, they became trespassers. This will shall be considered in each of the following cases:

Augustus Gloop

The facts are as follows: In the first room the group arrives in, Mr. Wonka says, "everything in this room is edible" and waves the party off to "enjoy." It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that he expects his guests to eat things in the room, but Augustus Gloop (an "enormously fat" child) decides to reach into the chocolate river and scoop the contents out with his hands and pour it into his mouth. On seeing this, his mother yells, "Augustus, my child, that is not a good thing to do," and Mr. Wonka, callous as ever, adds "my chocolate must be untouched by human hands." When Augustus falls into the river, and Mrs. Gloop screams that her son cannot swim, Mr. Wonka appears unfazed and allows Augustus to be sucked up. 

Firstly, was Augustus a visitor, or was he now a trespasser? The court in Tomlinson v Congleton BC held that if it was clear that the individual was not permitted to be somewhere, then they were a trespasser. Did Augustus know that he was not allowed to be eating the chocolate river? There are, indeed, mixed messages, as Mr. Wonka told the children to enjoy the entirely-edible room, but at the same time, when he sees Augustus in the river, he tells the boy to stop, as does Mrs. Gloop. Giving Mr. Wonka the benefit of the doubt, we shall assume that Augustus was a trespasser, as he did know that he was no longer permitted to be touching the chocolate river. As a result, Augustus falls under the 1984 Act. 

Under s.1(3) of this statute, Mr. Wonka only owes a duty to Augustus if three conditions are satisfied:

• Mr. Wonka is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists. This condition is satisfied, as rivers - chocolate or otherwise - are inherently a danger. 
• Mr Wonka knows that the victims may come into the vicinity of the danger. This condition is also satisfied, as he invited the children into the edible room and encouraged them to roam around unsupervised. 
• The risk is one that Mr Wonka may reasonably be expected to offer Augustus some protection. This is also satisfied: it would be completely reasonable to encourage Mr Wonka to place a barrier around the river, or even a warning sign. 

As a result, Mr Wonka has a duty of care towards Augustus Gloop, and has breached that duty. 

A small beacon of hope for Mr Wonka is found in s.1(5) of the Act, which declares that if he gave reasonable warnings of the danger, or discouraged persons from incurring the risk, then no duty is owed to a person who has accepted the risk willingly. However, this small beacon is extinguished on application to the facts. Mr Wonka gave no reasonable warnings of the danger of falling in the river and being sucked up by the pipes to the bowels of the factory, and while he did feebly discourage Augustus from touching the chocolate, it is hardly reasonable to think that this would discharge his duty. 

Mrs Gloop did take some efforts to protect her son from falling in the river, by yelling at him, and so it would be unfair on her to say that she left it to Mr Wonka to assume her parental duties, as per the decision in Phipps v Rochester. Mr Wonka, is therefore, very likely liable under the 1984 Act for the personal injury incurred by Augustus Gloop (which appears to be just being covered in chocolate, but we cannot know the extent of his injuries until further examination by a medical professional). 

Violet Beauregard 

Violet eats a stick of gum, despite Mr Wonka's advice that he would "rather [she] didn't, there's still one or two things that..." and his request that she spit the gum out, because he is "a little concerned about..." Violet then turns blue and inflates into an enormous sphere. 

The question of whether Violet was permitted to eat the gum hinges on one crucial question: did Mr Wonka's "I'd rather you didn't" and "spit it out" constitute a revocation of permission? It would be reasonable to think not - it appeared to be a suggestion and had he tried to make the danger clear to Violet, it would be reasonable to think he would at least finish one of his sentences. Violet's case, therefore, fits under the 1957 Act. 

Under s.2(2) of the Act, Mr Wonka has a duty to his visitors to take all reasonable steps to see that they will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which they are invited or permitted by him to be there. The children were invited to the factory to see the inner workings of confectionary creation, and, a reasonable man would assume, sample some goods. Mr Wonka also knew of Violet's talent for chewing gum, and introducing her to a brand new gum was, perhaps, unwise if he was unsure of the gum's safety. 

Not only this, but Mr Wonka must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults, under s.2(3) and therefore while an adult may greet a new invention with some scepticism, particularly one as fantastical as three-meal gum, a child is less likely to use the same critical thinking skills. Mr Wonka clearly breached his duty to Violet to keep her reasonably safe, especially considering the severity of the damage she incurred (being permanently blue). 

Veruca Salt 

No one likes Veruca Salt. If the case was in front of a jury, she would lose. If the case was in front of a judge, she would lose. And (spoiler alert) she loses in this blog post, too. 

Veruca had no permission to climb through the (locked!) gate, and thus became a trespasser. For once, Mr Wonka sufficiently warned her that if she touches the squirrel, it will "make him crazy" and, frankly, she deserved to fall down the garbage chute. While Mr Wonka had to take into consideration the fact that she was a child, her father made no attempt to stop her (aside from saying her name) and thus parental duties were not surrendered to the factory owner. 

In summary: Mr Wonka is not liable for the damage suffered by Veruca Salt. 

Her father, however, likely has a better claim: Mr Wonka unlocked the gate for him, and watched him walk down the stairs to the hole in the floor, where he was pushed in by a squirrel. Mr Salt knew the dangers of doing what he did, having seen the same fate befall his daughter, but Mr Wonka still made no attempts to warn him or discourage him, as required by the 1957 Act. 

Mike Teavee

The final of Mr Wonka's four child victims: Mike Teavee is shrunk by a futuristic device, brutally beaten in a gory montage in a TV, and then stretched to 10ft tall by the Oompa Loompas. 

As Mike pushed past Mr Wonka, his father, and the working Oompa Loompas to reach the machine, it is safe to assume he knew he was not meant to be doing what he was doing, and thus it is reasonable to say that he was a trespasser. 

That being said, the danger was obvious - in fact, Mr Wonka had warned him against pressing the button and teleporting himself - but there were no signs warning against it, no safety equipment, aside from the goggles, and no barriers to prevent people from getting too close to what was clearly a dangerous machine. Despite Mr Wonka's declaration that Mike is "completely unharmed," the truth is somewhat more chilling: Mr Wonka breached his duty of care through the distinct lack of protection afforded to Mike, no matter how arrogant he was being, and thus could be held liable for the extensive physical injuries incurred by the young boy. 

Closing thoughts 

It must be said that, without a doubt, Mr Wonka is an incredibly reckless individual, who has opened himself up to all manner of tortious liability in a single day. While I was unable to read the Ts&Cs that may have appeared on the reverse of the Golden Tickets, he would be unable to exclude any personal injury resulting from his own negligence, regardless, and so Mr Wonka can expect to be paying a great deal of monetary damages to the four families, and is strongly advised to take immediate action to rectify the glaring health and safety violations present in his factory. 

It is not enough that four children and one man have been harmed, some irreparably, but the nonchalance with which Mr Wonka observed this string of accidents is indicative of his foresight that these incidents would occur. While this post has been limited to examining occupiers' liability under the two statutes, there is great potential for further liability under the tort of negligence, and criminal law as well. 

The opinions of this article are solely those of the author and are not intended to provide accurate legal advice for anyone to rely on. While the content is intended to be factually correct, the author does not accept any responsibility or liability arising from the use or misuse of this article or any loss/inconvenience/damage stemming from this. Legal advice should be sought from a qualified professional, not this blog. The opinions represented in this blog are personal and belong solely to the blog owner, and do not represent those of the people, institutions, or organisations that the owner may or may not be associated with in a professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. The views expressed by any podcast guest are their own entirely, and do not necessarily reflect those of the blog owner. The blog owner is not responsible and liable for any discrepancy, if any. Any content provided by this blog or its companion podcast is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organisation, company, individual, or anyone or anything. This post may contain content not authorised for use by its owner. This post constitutes a fair use of any copyrighted material as provided for by UK copyright legislation, including, but not limited to, for teaching and research purposes.