000			01785cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS67951
008			040623n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u126593
245			_aRhind v Astbury Water Park Ltd and another
260			_c2004
520			_a[2004] EWCA (Civ) 756, 16 June 2004. Claimant (R) appealed against HC decision ([2003] EWHC 1029 (QB), [2003] All ER (D) 217 (May)) that the defendants (A) were not in breach of duty owed as occupiers to R. A and another were occupiers of a disused gravel pit used for recreational purposes. R dived into the shallow water of the gravel pit to retrieve his football, hitting his head on a fibreglass container on the bottom and suffered severe personal injuries. R accepted that he was a trespasser when he dived into the water, but argued that his injury was caused by a danger within the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 s1(3) that A had failed to protect against. R was unable to establish on the evidence submitted the threshold requirement for the existence of a duty of care, since he could not show that the defendants were aware of the danger on their land that caused his injury or had reasonable grounds for believing that it existed. "Tomlinson v Congleton BC and another" ([2003] UKHL 47, Abs67008) applied. HC decision upheld. View judgment at www.bailii.org.
590			_aABS
650			_aRHIND V ASTBURY WATER PARK LTD AND ANOTHER
650			_aTOMLINSON V CONGLETON BC
650			_aDUTY OF CARE
650			_aOCCUPIERS' LIABILITY ACT 1984 S1(3)
650			_aOCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT 1957
650			_aDONOGHUE V FOLKESTONE PROPERTIES LTD
690			_aLAW-CASE LAW
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/756.html _zView judgement on the BAILII websiteƯ
942			_n0
999			_c74439 _d74439