Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Carl Wayne Bennion v Adventure Parc Snowdonia Limited

[2023] EWHC 3334 (KB)
A surfer got hurt at a wave pool because he fell on a shallow part. The court decided the pool owners did enough to keep people safe, even though the surfer was seriously injured. The judge said surfing is risky, and while the pool could have been safer, making it much safer would have ruined the whole point of the wave pool.

Key Facts

  • On August 5, 2018, the claimant, Mr. Bennion, suffered serious injuries while surfing at an artificial lagoon operated by the defendant.
  • The lagoon, opened in 2015, had varying water depths, including a shallow reef (0.9m) designed for wave generation.
  • Surfers could choose from beginner, intermediate 1, intermediate 2, and advanced levels.
  • Mr. Bennion, an intermediate 2 surfer, fell and hit his head on the lagoon floor, resulting in tetraplegia.
  • The incident was captured on CCTV.
  • The defendant had risk assessments in place but they contained errors and inconsistencies.
  • The defendant consulted with health and safety consultants (Inmans) but did not obtain a Declaration of Operational Compliance (DOC).

Legal Principles

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, section 2(2): An occupier owes a common duty of care to all lawful visitors to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises.

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

The assessment of liability under the 1957 Act is a factual assessment based on the particular circumstances of each case, considering likelihood of injury, seriousness of injury, social value of the activity, and cost of preventative measures (James v White Lion Hotel [2021] EWCA Civ; Tomlinson [2003] UKHL 47).

James v White Lion Hotel [2021] EWCA Civ; Tomlinson [2003] UKHL 47

Outcomes

The claim was dismissed.

The court found that the defendant had discharged its duty of care. The risk of injury, while acknowledged, was considered moderate, mitigated by various safety measures, and outweighed by the social value of surfing and the impracticality of eliminating the risk entirely by altering the lagoon's design. The court rejected the claimant's arguments regarding inadequate warnings, insufficient consultation, and the shallow depth of the reef.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.