Cockbill v Riley

An occupier who supervises a party may assume responsibility for the safety of guests and owe them a duty to take reasonable care. The duty generally requires keeping a reasonable watch on activities and intervening reasonably if behaviour becomes dangerous. It does not require preventing ordinary, voluntarily undertaken recreational risks. Liability depends on whether serious injury was reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances. Boisterous teenagers jumping feet first into a paddling pool did not, without more, make a head-first dive or belly-flop and grave injury reasonably foreseeable. The occupier was therefore not in breach by failing to give a specific prohibition or intervene more forcefully.

The claimant, aged 16, suffered incomplete tetraplegia after entering a paddling pool head first at a party held at the defendant’s home. Teenagers had earlier been jumping into the pool, splashing and behaving boisterously. The defendant, who was present and supervising the party, had called the guests in for food before the accident.

The claimant alleged that the defendant negligently permitted the pool to be used, failed to control the activities and failed to prevent the accident. The central questions were the scope of the defendant’s assumed responsibility, whether serious injury was reasonably foreseeable, and whether the defendant had acted in breach of duty.

1. The claim was dismissed. The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care because he had assumed responsibility for the safety of guests at the party.

2. The appropriate duty was reasonably to keep an eye on what was happening, keep abreast of the activities and intervene reasonably if matters became out of hand. The duty did not require intervention that would unnecessarily spoil the party.

3. The mere provision of a paddling pool for teenage guests did not itself create a foreseeable risk of significant injury or require a formal risk assessment. The modest consumption of alcohol did not materially alter that conclusion.

4. It was reasonably foreseeable that someone might lose footing and suffer minor injury while teenagers jumped and splashed in the pool. It was not reasonably foreseeable that a guest would attempt a dive or belly-flop, or that this would result in grave spinal injury. The danger of diving into water of unknown depth was obvious.

5. The defendant had reduced the boisterousness by calling the guests to eat. Although the guests regarded him as an authority figure and would probably have obeyed an instruction not to run or jump, he was not under a legal duty to give that instruction.

6. The court found that the claimant intended a belly-flop, misjudged the angle and entered the water head first. It was not established that he slipped on wet grass. Even if he had slipped, that would not have established liability. If liability had been found, contributory negligence would have been assessed at two-thirds.