Grimes v Hawkins & Anor [2011] EWHC 2004 (QB) (03 August 2011)

Grimes v Hawkins & Anor [2011] EWHC 2004 (QB) (03 August 2011)

The defendant was not in breach of duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 or at common law. The pool was not unsafe for diving, there were no hidden hazards, and the claimant voluntarily undertook an activity with inherent risk, fully aware of the dangers. It would not be fair, just, or reasonable to impose a duty requiring the defendant to prohibit diving or access to the pool.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2004
Parties
Claimant: Kylie Grimes; First Defendant: David Hawkins; Second Defendant: Frimley Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Liability Trial Against First Defendant
Outcome
Claim against first defendant dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, Common Law Negligence, Duty of Care, Swimming Pool Accidents, Diving Injuries, Assumption of Risk
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 Common Law Negligence Duty of Care Swimming Pool Accidents Diving Injuries +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kylie Grimes

Claimant

David Hawkins

First Defendant

Frimley Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Liability Trial Against First Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant breached his duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant owed and breached a common law duty of care to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the swimming pool was unsafe for diving

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was not in breach of duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 or at common law. The pool was not unsafe for diving, there were no hidden hazards, and the claimant voluntarily undertook an activity with inherent risk, fully aware of the dangers. It would not be fair, just, or reasonable to impose a duty requiring the defendant to prohibit diving or access to the pool.

Court Disposition

Claim against first defendant dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against first defendant dismissed
  • Awaiting submissions on form of order