Debate - Should she sue?

[codegirl]

I think that she has a right to sue. We don't really have enough information to know who's really at fault. I was just thinking that what if the homeowner installed a diving board and the pool wasn't deep enough to support it? Those are the kind of questions that a short article doesn't answer but can be explored in court.

The way the article is written it sounds like she won't win but it's pretty short and condenced so it's hard to be judge and jury based off of it, IMHO.

I can see her needing financial aid with her care, and if someone did screw up (i.e. the hospital or the homeowner) then it's fair that they help.

her day in court will hopefully sort it all out for all involved.

 

[annawrigley]

Absolutely not.
Its tragic what happened to her, but she was completely at fault.

 

[rubixcyoob.]

Her case probably would have no evidence for negligence. Sure there were no signs posted, however in a civil case like this the burden of proof requires that all evidence be on the 'balance of probabilities'.
This would mean that if there were signs would she have paid heed to them, or ignored them. If the later it wouldn't matter, she wouldn't be able to sue. If it was the former however, she could.

I for one doubt it could be seen or conveyed that she would have paid attention to the signs for many reasons:

- it was a midnight swim. Who goes for a midnight swim sober? There was probably alcohol involved, thus dimming her common sense - signs would not have been the first thing on her mind.
- it was a midnight swim. Unless glow in the dark the signs would not have been noticeable so she wouldn't have paid attention to them. She couldn't expect them to instal indvidual sign lights because it would not be probable to assume anyone would be swimming at 12am.
- it was a private swimming pool. I have never seen a private pool with signs. She should have taken heed of this fact and realised it wasn't the same as a public pool, water depth would not be the same.
- even if there had been a sign would the accident have occured? She may have been warned, she may have taken a little more precautions, but who is to say she wouldn't have landed the way she did?

It wouldn't stand up in court. Some Lord said about Boxers - "one who is willing cannot be hurt", meaning, in a boxing match both take part knowing there can be injuries, no one can sue the other if they occur. With events like swimming it is probable there are injuries that could occur, if you willingly go ahead, do not expect compensation should liability arise.

However, if it can be proven she could sue the NHS Trust I would. If there negligent care caused me added injuries or heightened my already apparent injuries I would have compensation to pay for my life-long care.

I think she should in a way tbh, shes was invited into the pool its not like she just said oh im going into the pool, most houses with pools outside do have lighting outside so signs would of been able to be seen. just because it was 12am does not mean anyone is drunk when people are drunk they more jump into the pool that dive into it. If she was never alarted to the fact the pool is not the correct depth to be dived into by her friend or by signs then i think she has everyright

I was saying, based purely from a 'balance of probabilities' it holds no real basis. Probably speaking it wasn't negligence and just an accident ocured when people have too much fun around places known to be dangerous.

Most pools in private homes do have signs, but there is no legal requirement for them too because they are private and no intended for public use. So by saying that the homeowner should have had signs is moot. Yes, maybe for comfort he should have, but legally there is no grounds to say he needed them.
As for the lights, yes the pool side may have been lit up, but again he is under no legal obligation to make sure it was. They may have neglected the lights. And pool sings tend to be on the inside wall of a pool or on the poolside floor indication depth, little lights in the dark would not have made much difference if they weren't looking out for them anyway. Or so my law professors told me. We actually discussed this case in Evidence law, using that little snippet as the whole evidence for the trial lol.

At the end of the day, it it were her and a few other people jumping into a pool (no one said there was a diving board per say, just that they dived, it could have been from waters edge), and she was the only one hurt, it was negligence just carelessness.

It is tragic, but to try pin fault where there really is none to blame is tragic too.