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 his 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. 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 (QB)
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 the first defendant dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, Common Law Negligence, Duty of Care, Swimming Pool Accidents, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 Common Law Negligence Duty of Care Swimming Pool Accidents Contributory Negligence

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 10 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 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 his 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. 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 the first defendant dismissed