Study Notes

Key Case | Rhind v Astbury Water Park (2004) | Occupiers Liability - Trespassers – Establishing a Duty

A Level, BTEC Level 3
AQA, Edexcel, OCR, IB, Eduqas, WJEC

According to the requirements of s1(3)(a) of the 1984 Act of Occupiers liability, no duty will be owed if the defendants did not know of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe that it existed.


Claimant: Visitor to water park

Defendant: Licence owners for the Mere

Facts: The claimant dived into a shallow mere that was frequently used by the public to fetch a football, despite warning signs. The claimant suffered injuries as a result of hitting a fibre glass container that was at the bottom of the mere. The fibre glass container was not visible from the side of the mere or those inspecting above the water, it only became apparent when an underwater inspection was completed.

Outcome: Not Liable

Legal principle: As evidence clearly indicated that the fibre glass was not known of by the defendants, and nor were they expected to regularly undertake underwater inspections, the requirements of s1(3)(a) of the 1984 Act were not satisfied.

Boston House,
214 High Street,
Boston Spa,
West Yorkshire,
LS23 6AD

Tel: +44 0844 800 0085

© 2021 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.