Tort - Seminar 8 -Ratcliffe v McConnell by Claire Turner https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn en-us 2017-11-16 13:05:36 UTC 2025-11-21 14:30:05 UTC hello@padlet.com 1) What tortious1 issues are raised by this case? [10%] claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3211422042 2024-11-11 15:27:22 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3211422042 2) Explain the arguments upon which the appeal was based. [25%] claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3211422259 2024-11-11 15:27:30 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3211422259 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%] claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3211422359 2024-11-11 15:27:36 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3211422359 Ratcliffe v McConnell claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692069936 2025-11-20 14:18:25 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692069936 Link to Oscola Referencing Guide claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692070043 2025-11-20 14:18:30 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692070043 Link to Oscola Quick referencing guide claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692070172 2025-11-20 14:18:35 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692070172 Qu 1 - Issues claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692070303 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

]]> 2025-11-20 14:18:42 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692070303 Appellant (Defendant) claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692070539 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]



]]> 2025-11-20 14:18:52 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692070539 Argument Plaintiff (Respondent) claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692070687 The signs were insufficient. They should have been informed orally or given a written notice of regulations prohibiting diving3


  1. ibid [30]



]]> 2025-11-20 14:18:59 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692070687 Judgment claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692070832 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


  1. ibid [35], [45]

  2. (1995) 93 L.G.R. 536

  3. Ratcliffe (n1) [44]

]]> 2025-11-20 14:19:04 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/8mrlgzl7oexn/wish/3692070832