Legal Reasoning of a Case

Introduction

The dispute was between the complainants, Luke William Ratcliff and his friends, and the defendants, G. R. McConnell and the management of Harper Adams Agricultural College. William, who was a 19 year old boy, went for swimming in the night of winter season in the pool of Agriculture College. It has been observed that the college management has prohibited swimming in the night, and the main gate of the swimming pool was locked. The complainants illegal entered into the premises of college by climbing the boundary wall of the pool. William, then dived into the pool and got injured having severe injuries on his head. William had filed a case against the governors of the Agriculture College, under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. According to the complainant, due to irresponsibility of management, the pool was not filled, according to the standards and also the depth was not according to the design standards.

1)Tortious Issues

According to the remarks of the judge of High Court, Brunning, both the parties were found guilty. The management of the college was held 60 percent, and the plaintiff was 40 percent responsible for the incident. The judge, has decided based on the findings of Mr Sander, who is the water and leisure consultant. The judge further stated, based on his investigations that there were several cases of using of swimming pool during the prohibited hours, and the governors of the college were well aware of the fact. It has been observed that William was fond of drinking, but he was not drunk at the time of the incident.

This decision of the court had not leave sound effects on the society. Several people have argued that the decision was not fair and was unacceptable. Due to this decision, the activities of climbing the premises of the college were not discouraged. The judge found the management of the Agriculture College for breaching “the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984”[1]. The judge ordered that the defendants the act of everyday duty care. The society argued that the judge must fine the complainants, as they were over drunk. The college management argued that the judge had not gone through the whole act. 

2)Arguments of the Appeal

The complainant, William, filed the case against the governors of the college based on their negligence towards the designing of the pool. It has been observed that the plaintiff has a vast knowledge about the swimming pool, and he also hired a professional consultant of water and leisure named Sander. The complainant won the case in the high court based on poor design of the pool and due to negligence of the pool’s management in their primary duty of care and security. The complainants claimed that the governors of Agriculture College were responsible for breaching “the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957”[2].

The management of the college has challenged the decision of Judge in “the Court of Appeal”, arguing that the decision was not based on the exact facts and findings of the incident. The defendants have reported that William had illegal access to the premises of the college. The governors of the college did not ready to accept the allegations of William. They claimed that William and his friends had illegally climbed the premises of the college. This unauthorised entry of these college students was not taken seriously by the court. Also, the notices visible on the walls of the swimming pool were ignored by the complainants.

As they were over drunk, therefore, they were unable to realise the suitable driving position. They ignored all the notices and warning signs, and dived into the pool. Unfortunately, one of the complainant, William has dived into the shallow part of the pool having low water and depth. The owners of the swimming pool argued that the complainant accepted during the hearing that there were notices on either end of the pool, in which warning, the deep side and the shallow side were clearly mentioned. The owners further argued that the pool was filled with dangerous chemicals, to disinfect and cleaned the water.

3)Judgement of the Court

The defendants explained that they were not responsible for the incident happen with William. According to them, William is well aware of the fact that the pool was prohibited for swimming during night. The defendants also informed the court that the Agriculture College had hired a patrolling team of private security company. Two men were continuously patrolling during the closing hours of the pool. This patrolling team reports daily to Colonel Taylor, about the happenings that took place during night. The petrol team stops several boys who want to use the swimming pool of the college during the closing hours[3].

It has been further argued that the judge has not considered the period of 1989 to 1990. The judge further stated that a similar case has happened, when a rugby player, 19 years old Mills, climbed over the college premises and dived into the shallow part of the swimming pool at night, when the gates of the pool were locked. Due to diving into the shallowest part of the pool, Mills got injured, and he had severe injuries on his head similar to that of William. The judge of High Court further wrote in his decision, that the notice written was not prominent to the people.

According to the judgement of the appeal court, William and his friends were responsible for the incident that happened with them. The judge further stated that the timings of the pool were written on the notice board. The pool was not allowed for from 10 p.m. to 6.30 a.m. The judge overruled the decision of the high court judge by giving remarks that the plaintiff was responsible for more than 40 percent[4].

The judge after observing the arguments of all the participants of the dispute, he concluded that the plaintiff, William and his friends, Rupert Wager and James Wooton, entered the bar to attend the disco party with his friends. The disco bar is located approximately 100 yards away from the swimming pool. The stated in his findings that the bar was closed at 10:45 p.m., but the complainants enjoyed drinking there till 2:30 a.m. This clue failed the argument of William that they were not drunk. The judge further written that these college students decided to go for swimming in the pool of their college.

He stated that the complainant, being the student of the college, well aware of the rules and regulations of the swimming pool. As a regular visitor, he was also aware of the shallow and deep sides of the pool. As the fact that they were over drunk, they were not in their senses. It has been written that William had consumed four pints of alcohol. The judge further explained that the security of the pool was quite good. There were fence walls around the boundary of the swimming pool. Also there were wooden gates at the entrance point, which was blocked by the security team at the time of closing[5]. The judge also considered the security report of the patrolling party to compare the evidence. It has been observed that there were no cases of misusing the premises of the swimming pool.

Conclusion

The detailed judgement of the appeal court explained the real facts and figures of the incident that happened on July, 1996. The judgement of the appeal court seems to be acceptable for the defendants, and also for the society. The evidence provided by Williams and his friends, regarding misusing of the swimming pool was not proved to be authenticated, during the hearing of Appeal Court. It has been concluded that the plaintiffs were found culprit, as they made unauthorised access within the premises of the Agriculture College. Also, they had ignored the warning notices, and they were found over drunk. Also they had admitted that they were well aware regarding the deep and shallow points of the swimming pool.

[1] The judge held that the defendants were in breach of section 1 of the Act of 1984 in that they did not take such care as was reasonable in the circumstances to give warnings of the danger or to discourage persons from incurring the risks that were incurred by the plaintiff, and that the breach of duty was causative of the plaintiffs accident, although the plaintiff was 40 per cent.to blame.

[2] The plaintiff, Luke William Ratcliff, claimed damages and interest against the defendants, G. R. McConnell and E. W. Jones, sued on their own behalf as governors and on behalf of all other governors of Harper Adams Agricultural College, for negligence and/or breach of duty under the Occupiers Liability.

[3] The defendants employed a security company to patrol the campus at night. It seems that these were two men patrols. The patrolmen wrote daily reports about events that took place during the night which were submitted to Colonel Taylor, the Bursar. The relevant reports were disclosed.

[4] He erred in failing to hold that the plaintiffs contributory negligence extinguished the defendants liability, alternatively that the plaintiffs negligence was greater than 40 per cent.

[5] The walls of some college buildings form part of the enclosure and the remaining areas are contained by substantial walls and fences about seven feet high. Entrance to the pool can be gained through the male and female changing rooms, which give access to the pool side. In addition there was a wooden gate in the brick wall near the shallow end of the pool. During the autumn and winter terms, and in particular on the night in question, the changing rooms and the wooden gate were locked.