Posted By Diane Thomason The above is a newspaper headline today. The case is of a young man who was paralysed after diving into a council-owned lake. The Lords said he had taken a premeditated risk because he ignored "no swimming" signs. They overturned the appeal court's ruling that the council bore a third of the responsibility. Lord Hoffman said the authorities had no duty to take steps to prevent the man from diving or warn him against "perfectly obvious" dangers - he said "I think there is an important question of freedom at stake. The fact that people take no notice of warnings cannot create a duty to take other steps to protect them". He also said "There is a risk of accidents arising out of the joy of the young. But that is no reason for imposing a grey and dull safety regime on everyone." This seems to be a very sensible judgement and could be an important precedent. What do others think?

Posted By Adrian Watson Just for interest the case is Tomlinson (FC) (Original Respondent and Cross-appellant) v. Congleton Borough Council and others (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents) House of Lords [2003] UKHL 47.

Posted By Hilary Charlton Very glad to hear the voice of reason eventually - I wonder if this could apply to a recent thread on people jumping off the top of council owned buildings? Interesting precedent and very welcome I should say. Hilary

Posted By Jason Gould A break for employers and local authorities at last. I do feel sorry for anyone who injures themselves but not to the extent that they are always owed compensation. Yes young children are entitled to extra care. One has to consider what is classed as a young children. The plantiff was 18 at the time and the judge stated youthul exuberance had led to the tragedy. It would be interesting to know what the starting age of youthul exuberance was. Take the following comments and confessions to mind. I remember when I was 10 -12 and sneaking through the local papermill factory with some freinds was a frill, pure adventure etc. never recalled any safety signs at that age even though they were surely there. I also shamesly remember sneaking through the papermill with the same freinds at 14-16 trying to steel things setting off fire extinguisheres etc. We understood the Warnings hell we even took notice of a few before using them as tagets for air pistols etc. And again at the age of 18 we would target the papermill to taunt the security guard steel tools with the intenion of gaining profit. we would steel pieces of certain machinery to fix our motorbikes or buggys. I know the plaintiff was just diving but if I were injured at the same age i think we would still be using the same case (occupiers liabilty duty of care etc) not sure. So Lets look deepr if this is going to be some presedent case. Would the same apply if for example. I was 15 I was 10 I was 7 I personally think we still have a long way to go before we get there. Theres some relief but I dont think its the end in fact i would go as far a saying this is going to bite some in the as* later on.

Posted By Robert Paterson Can anyone put some light on the question with regard to Scotland. Would the same ruling apply up here? What would be the interpretation of this judgement under our laws? Kind Regards Robert Paterson