Where the risk of injury from diving into water of unknown and variable depth is obvious, the occupier's knowledge of the danger (including knowledge of seabed variation) is neutralised by the obviousness of the risk, and the scope of the occupier's duty does not extend to warning of or prohibiting diving. The fact that a plaintiff observed others diving safely does not detract from the obviousness of the risk. The risk should be defined at the level of diving into water of unknown and variable depth, not at the narrower level of whether the diver appreciated that the water might not be sufficiently deep.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 35 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 35 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.