Ratcliff v McConnell & Anor [1997] EWCA Civ 2679 (07 November 1997)

Ratcliff v McConnell & Anor [1997] EWCA Civ 2679 (07 November 1997)

The defendants owed no duty to the plaintiff under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 because the risk of injury from diving into the pool was obvious to an adult, the plaintiff was aware of and willingly accepted the risk, and the defendants had taken reasonable steps to prohibit access. No further duty to warn or protect arose.

Citation
[1997] EWCA Civ 2679
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Luke William Ratcliff; Defendants/appellants: G. R. McConnell and E. W. Jones (as Governors of Harper Adams Agricultural College)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From QBD (high Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for defendants.
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Negligence, Trespassers, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Injuria
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Negligence Trespassers Duty of Care Contributory Negligence Volenti Non Fit Injuria

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luke William Ratcliff

Plaintiff/respondent

G. R. McConnell and E. W. Jones (as Governors of Harper Adams Agricultural College)

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From QBD (high Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 as a trespasser
  2. 2 Whether the risk of injury from diving into the pool was obvious and willingly accepted by the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the defendants breached any duty owed under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants owed no duty to the plaintiff under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 because the risk of injury from diving into the pool was obvious to an adult, the plaintiff was aware of and willingly accepted the risk, and the defendants had taken reasonable steps to prohibit access. No further duty to warn or protect arose.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for defendants.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs not to be enforced without leave of the court.
  • Order nisi against legal aid fund with nil contribution.