A statutory authority that manages and maintains recreational land and thereby encourages its use for swimming and diving owes a duty to guard against foreseeable risks of injury from that use, including risks arising from changed conditions after flooding, even where the authority did not create the physical feature causing the risk. However, a statutory authority with a fundamentally different charter (such as forestry management), supervising vast areas with only peripheral recreational responsibilities, does not owe a comparable duty merely because the risk materialises on land under its control. The obviousness of a risk in the abstract does not negate breach where, from the plaintiff's perspective and experience, the risk was concealed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 22 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 22 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.