Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By CFT
I am desperately looking for information regarding any civil claim for drowning in water owned by private land owners. In particular whether the lake etc had installed rescue equipment to assist a drowning person.
I am currently writing up a report for one of our company sites which contains an 80 acre lake which is appropriately signed but they have had an 'expert' consultant recommend NO rescue equipment is included as it becomes an invitation to swim, despite signs stating 'No swimming etc' 'Deep Water'. There were two fatalities in recent years under previous ownership; I am recommending immediate placement of rescue equipment with appropriate maintenance inspection regime, and would therefore be extremely grateful if someone may be able to point me towards a previous similar civil claim for drowning that I can include as a reference on my report.
Many thanks for your time.
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Charley,
Wasn't there a case not so long ago where someone dived into a private lake and bust his back? The owners were (on appeal) found to have no duty.
I have no competence, but I'd agree that any life saving devices were an invitation or at least acknowledgement of duty of care to "trespassers".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Oliver
The duty if care extends to persons who may be affected by your activities, so even tresspassers would fall into this category.
Don't know if they are urban myths but I've heard a number of tales over the years about tresspassers prosecuting building owners where they have injured themsleves on walls where broken glass has been embedded and also people who have fallen through skylights, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Holland1
Darby v National Trust is one such case
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Tomlinson v Congleton BC was quoted last time this one came up.
It doesn't specifically address rescue bouys, but I recon it demonstrates that providing reasonable measures are put in place then an organisation cannot be held liable.
Do a site search on "ponds" to access previous discussions on this.
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
Much gratitude to you all; I have now completed my report with appropriate referencing.
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anthony Slinger
CFT you replied just as i sent my response. I would be interested to know, after your research, if you still want rescue equipment around the lake?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
Anthony
Thanks for the reminder, it was 18 months ago and a different location, and a puddle in comparison, no excuse though, other than memory failed me and did not have time to run searches on the forum as I usually do.
Age, my how the memory needs some serious help at times, never mind I'm in the second half of my century, so much to look forward to! Trouble is I can't remember what it is!
Thanks again for the reminder.
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
As you have asked Anthony my recommendation is yes, install rescue equipment. There will always be an argument against but in this case as the expanse of water is so large and a public right of way runs around 70% of it, there is every probability that an incident may well occur. On that basis alone and the fact that many walkers could be elderly and stand little chance of recovery if they had unfortunately found themselves in the lake, without any means of rescue it would be difficult to provide assistance. As there have been two fatalities under previous ownership, ignorance is no defence on this occasion, and as the insurer has given their approval for installation of said equipment as long as a documented inspection and maintenance system is in place, I have no reservation in the installation of rescue equipment.
Not an easy one to be completely conclusive over, but I would rather be in a position to offer testimony that all that was done had been reasonably considered, and took into consideration the previous drownings and did all that was necessary to do all to prevent such a tragedy occurring again.
I consider that if you have weighed up all considerations, and taken every reasonable step to prevent such an occurrence, then on the balance of probabilities, or beyond reasonable doubt, you have done all that was reasonably expected of you in such a situation as I have described.
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.