# data[].attributes.body
As the danger was apparent it was an obvious risk. 4 There was no requirement to warn of such an obvious risk (Staples v West Dorset) 5

Duty depends on the age 6

4. ibid [35], [45]

5. (1995) 93 L.G.R. 536

6. Ratcliffe (n1) [44]

# data[].attributes.body
The signs were insufficient. They should have been informed orally or given a written notice of regulations prohibiting diving3

3. ibid [30]

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence didn't support judge's finding at first instance1

Rare adult to succeed where there obvious danger and fence - defendant would no reasonable grounds they were in vicinity

1. Ratcliffe v McConnell [1999] 1 WLR 670 [12]

2. ibid [40]

# data[].attributes.body
Brief outline of facts - broke into a pool after hours, winter pool closed. Dived into pool in the shallow end and left himself tetraplegic.

Law - Occupiers Liability Act 1984 - unlawful visitor (trespasser)

Consent to risk and contributory negligence. Brief explanation of the law.

Decision court 1st instance - Brunning J - Defendant in breach duty under the act.

Award - 60% damages (40% contributory negligence)

Who appealed? College - defendant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OSCOLA: a guide to referencing your sources for NLS students

# data[].attributes.headline
3) What was the judgment of the Court of Appeal and explain the legal reasoning of that court in either allowing or dismissing the appeal? [65%]

# data[].attributes.subject
3) What was the judgment of the Court of Appeal and explain the legal reasoning of that court in either allowing or dismissing the appeal? [65%]

# data[].attributes.headline
2) Explain the arguments upon which the appeal was based. [25%]

# data[].attributes.subject
2) Explain the arguments upon which the appeal was based. [25%]

# data[].attributes.headline
1) What tortious1 issues are raised by this case? [10%]

# data[].attributes.subject
1) What tortious1 issues are raised by this case? [10%]