## Facts

- Mr. Ratcliff entered a swimming pool at Harper Adams College at night, after consuming alcohol, and was injured when he dived into the shallow end.
- The pool was not meant for use at night, and there were neither express nor implied permissions for such use after hours.
- Mr. Ratcliff was a trespasser at the time of injury, so his claim fell under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, not the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
- The claim concerned whether the college, as occupier, owed a duty of care to Mr. Ratcliff in these circumstances, specifically regarding protection against obvious risks.

## Issues

1. Whether Harper Adams College owed a duty of care to Mr. Ratcliff under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 as a trespasser.
2. Whether the risk of diving into the shallow end of a swimming pool at night was an "obvious danger" such that no duty arose.
3. Whether the college had breached any duty by failing to warn of or protect against the risk.
4. Whether any defences, such as volenti non fit injuria or contributory negligence, affected liability.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal found that the circumstances did not impose a duty of care on the college under the 1984 Act.
- The risk of diving into shallow water was judged to be an obvious danger to a reasonable adult.
- The court held that occupiers are not required to provide warnings or protection against obvious risks, especially to trespassers.
- The college was not liable for Mr. Ratcliff’s injuries.
- The actions of Mr. Ratcliff contributed to the harm, and this could not be shifted onto the occupier.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, an occupier owes a limited duty to non-visitors (e.g., trespassers) provided certain statutory conditions are met.
- Section 1(3) of the 1984 Act requires occupiers to be aware (or have reasonable grounds to believe) of the danger, know (or have reasonable grounds to believe) that a person may come into its vicinity, and the risk must be one against which protective measures may reasonably be expected.
- The duty owed is more restricted than the "common duty of care" under the 1957 Act.
- For "obvious dangers," especially those apparent to a reasonable adult, no duty to protect or warn arises.
- Defences such as volenti non fit injuria (willing acceptance of risk) and contributory negligence are available under Section 2(5) of the 1957 Act and Section 1(6) of the 1984 Act.
- Warnings or steps to discourage trespass may discharge any duty owed.
- The concept of caveat emptor formerly applied to actions by vendors and lessors, modified by the Defective Premises Act 1972, though primarily relevant to builders and lessors and not directly to occupiers’ liability.

## Conclusion

Ratcliff v McConnell [1999] 1 WLR 670 clarifies the scope of an occupier's duty to trespassers under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, holding that where a risk is obvious to a reasonable adult, no duty arises to prevent injury from that danger, and the duty is less extensive than for lawful visitors under the 1957 Act.
