When a prank after a few drinks led to a life-changing tragedy
What happened?
A student had been out drinking with friends on a university campus and they decided they would go for a swim in the college pool which was one hundred yards from the student bar.
The pool had a notice at the entrance which stated the pool would be locked and its use prohibited between the hours of 10pm and 6.30am. The three students climbed over a locked gate into the open air swimming pool. There was a notice at the shallow end stating ‘Shallow end’ and a notice at the deep end stating ‘Deep end, shallow dive’.
The boys, however, did not see the signs because it was dark. They dived in. Unfortunately, the point at which the one of the students dived was shallow – he sustained a broken neck and was permanently paralysed.
The student claimed for negligence by the college.
Legal Outcome
The trial judge held that the college owed a duty of care which had been breached because the college had not taken more action to prevent use of the pool. The pool had often been used by students in the prohibited hours so the college should have been aware that the claimant was within a class of persons who may come into the danger.
The damages were, however, reduced by 60% under contributory negligence.
The defendants appealed contending that the repeated trespass all took place before they started locking the gates – four years before the accident.
At appeal, the judge decided the claimant was not entitled to compensation.
The judge decided the College had taken greater steps to reduce trespass by students. The only incidence of trespass to the pool in the four years prior to the claimant’s injury, related to students from a visiting college. Also the trial judge had incorrectly identified the danger. The pool itself was not dangerous it was the activity of diving into it which was unsafe. This was an obvious danger to which there was no duty to warn.
By surrounding the pool with a seven foot high fence, a locked gate and a prohibition on use of the pool in the stated hours the college had offered a reasonable level of protection.
What can we learn from what happened?
It is often assumed that trespassers are not owed a duty of care because they have unlawfully entered someone’s property. Trespassers are owed that duty, but the level to which you put controls in place to protect them will often be influenced by how often trespass is committed. The rarer it is, the less you would be required to put in place, and the more common, the more controls will be needed.
In the end the College understood that students were previously tempted to have a dip after a few drinks, but they dealt with it reasonably – a seven foot high fence, a locked gate, appropriate signage, and information saying that access to the pool was prohibited. Sadly the student in question did not heed the advice.
Source of Information
E-Law Resources