McCarrick v Park Resorts Ltd. [2012] EWHC B27 (QB) (26 October 2012)

McCarrick v Park Resorts Ltd. [2012] EWHC B27 (QB) (26 October 2012)

The first defendant, knowing the pool was too shallow for diving and having decided to prohibit diving, warn users, and supervise with lifeguards, owed a duty to prevent or protect against the risk of diving. The risk was not obvious to the claimant in these circumstances. The first defendant breached its duty by failing to provide adequate signage and supervision, and these breaches caused the claimant's injury. The second and third defendants owed no duty to the claimant as they had no control over the pool or its operation.

Citation
[2012] EWHC B27
Parties
Claimant: [Claimant's Name Redacted]; First Defendant: Park Resorts Ltd; Second Defendant: [Second Defendant Name Redacted]; Third Defendant: [Third Defendant Name Redacted]
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Trial of Preliminary Issue on Liability
Outcome
Liability established against the first defendant; claim against second and third defendants dismissed.
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Voluntary Assumption of Risk, Signage and Warnings, Lifeguard Supervision, Risk Assessment
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation Voluntary Assumption of Risk +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[Claimant's Name Redacted]

Claimant

Park Resorts Ltd

First Defendant

[Second Defendant Name Redacted]

Second Defendant

[Third Defendant Name Redacted]

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Trial of Preliminary Issue on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant to prevent or protect against the risk of diving into shallow water.
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant breached that duty by failing to provide adequate signage and supervision.
  3. 3 Whether the breaches were causative of the claimant's injuries.

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant, knowing the pool was too shallow for diving and having decided to prohibit diving, warn users, and supervise with lifeguards, owed a duty to prevent or protect against the risk of diving. The risk was not obvious to the claimant in these circumstances. The first defendant breached its duty by failing to provide adequate signage and supervision, and these breaches caused the claimant's injury. The second and third defendants owed no duty to the claimant as they had no control over the pool or its operation.

Court Disposition

Liability established against the first defendant; claim against second and third defendants dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant against the first defendant on liability.
  • Claim against the second and third defendants dismissed.