Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 28 April 2005 16:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tim Corbett What effect will the Hampstead Heath swimming pool make on other open water areas around England and Wales? Its the "no hidden dangers " bit that worries me will they now have to be inspected by underwater cameras or Divers. How then will that information be then made public and how will the sign it is shown on lasting more than a day or so before being removed. Those unaware see Telegraph
Admin  
#2 Posted : 28 April 2005 20:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle My interpretation (to all the information given) is different. It is that the local authority have been freed from responsibility for winter bathers wanting to take a dip in the cold waters of an unsupervised swimming area, the swimmers themselves bear the risk they take - of their own account. The reason the London Corporation closed the swmming lake was exactly because they thought they would be lumbered with the risk. This has now been clarified by the courts.... they are not responsible. The full monty is available from info sheets at: http://www.workplacelaw.net - from where I get free info-mails regularly.... Stuart
Admin  
#3 Posted : 29 April 2005 09:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Roger the Dodger I agree with Stuart. The case is similar to the one where the guy broke his neck diving into an old sand quarry, in Cheshire. The case was against Congleton Borough Council. As I understand it, it seems to me a body/organisation is not responsible for natural features of the ground or water feature (in these 2 cases). I think the judgement is helpful in that it clarifies the point that people have to take more responsibility for their own actions - and not simply take an organisation to court becauses of their own stupidity, when somethng goes wrong when taking part in their own leisure activities. Conkers and goggles indeed....
Admin  
#4 Posted : 29 April 2005 09:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Micky Not only similar Roger, but they used it as a precedent!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.