Ratcliff v McConnell
An occupier owes no duty under the 1984 Act to warn an adult trespasser of an obvious risk, such as diving into shallow water.
Facts
Mr Ratcliff, a student, climbed over a locked gate at night into an open air swimming pool at his college, which was closed for the winter, after drinking alcohol. There were notices saying that the pool was closed and that the shallow end was shallow. He dived into the shallow end, hit his head on the bottom and was seriously injured. He sued the college under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the college was not liable. Stuart-Smith LJ said that Mr Ratcliff was a trespasser, and the risk of diving into a pool of varying depth was obvious to an adult. Under section 1 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, the occupier was not obliged to protect him against a risk which he knew about and willingly accepted, and the warning notices were sufficient. In any event, he had willingly accepted the risk, within section 1(6).
Related cases on occupiers' liability
- British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
- Bunker v Charles Brand & Son Ltd [1969] 2 QB 480
- Cole v Davis-Gilbert [2007] EWCA Civ 396
- Darby v National Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 189
- Edwards v Railway Executive [1952] AC 737
- Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44
- Haseldine v CA Daw & Son Ltd [1941] 2 KB 343
- Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 39, [2006] 1 WLR 953
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
