One second of fun and a 18 year old body is shattered. A very sad business but a sound judgment (given what is said in the news clip). It may place some sort of marker down but way of saying that we should all take responsibility for our own actions.

The link cited in the original posting is to a BBC website about the judgement in the case of a young lady who suffered serious permanent injury in 2006 as a result of diving into a private swimming pool during a late night party in 2006. The case has parallels to the circumstances in 1995 which led to the House of Lords judgement in 2003 regarding Tomlinson -v- Congleton Borough Council. Mr Tomlinson, aged 18, suffered serious permanent incapacity (tetraplegia) through breaking his neck while diving into a shallow part of a lake at a country park in a former sand quarry. From the occupational safety aspect, this was a very notable case for organisations with publicly accessible areas containing potentially hazardous features such as lakes, rivers, cliffs, etc. The effect of the sensible judgement was to affirm that such organisations do not have to enclose and/or provide warning signs about such features. It also covered the fact that people should take reasonable responsibility for their own actions. For those keen to see more information try http://www.publications....mt/jd030731/tomlin-1.htm and also http://www.river-swimming.co.uk/judgement.htm The circumstances in both cases had tragically debilitating outcomes. On a general note, can other forum users confirm if swimming teachers remind their pupils never to dive or jump into any water (artificial pool or natural lake/river) unless they are certain of its depth and that it contains no subnmerged hazardous features? As for the question forming the subject of this topic, I think the answer is unclear. As with BBC news webpages generally, the one about the private swimming pool case is fairly concise and factual. It would be interesting to see in due course how other parts of the media report it. Just to add to Pete48's posting which has appeared as I type this, the swimming pool case comprises one where the claim has been unsuccessful. (Better add "so far", just in case there is an appeal against the High Court judgement) The same goes for the ultimately unsuccessful claim against Congleton Council. However, as Pete48 suggests, most media reports about such cases tend to be about successful claims. This helps to perpetuate the UK compensation culture and induce many people into thinking erroneously that making a claim will result in a payment. In reality, many claims are commenced but a sizeable proportion of them are spurious and, thankfully, are doomed to founder in their early stages - and never get to court where they could become known to the media.

The Tomlinson case confirms occupiers liability case law dating back to 1907 and 1908 Hastie v Magistrates of Edinburgh Stevenson v Glasgow Corporation The "unusual" part of this latest judgment. in the Tomlinson case, Lord Hutton commented that “ there might be exceptional cases where the principle stated in Stevenson and Taylor should not apply and where a claimant might be able to establish that the risk arising from some natural feature on the land was such that the occupier might reasonably be expected to offer him some protection against it, for example, where there was a very narrow and slippery path with a camber beside the edge of a cliff from which a number of persons had fallen.

The Coastguard were on radio 4 the other day with a boy who was cliff jumping then rested for 30 mins, when he went back to jump the tide went out and he hit the rocks below. He became paralysed as well at 18 I think he was. The coastguard said a rule of thumb is take the height of the cliff, 1/2 it then you need approximately that amount of water below to ensure you can land safely. He said it was difficult to check below the water line though. Poor girl uin this case though sound judgement by the court.