The sad tale of a child who nearly drowned could have significant influence on the law, a personal injury lawyer says.
In Woodland v Maxwell and another [2015] EWHC 273 (QB), [2015] All ER (D) 162 (Feb), Mr Justice Blake’s judgment on issues of causation and liability marked a long-awaited victory for the child’s family following a protracted and eventful 15-year legal campaign. Issues of quantum have yet to be decided.
Annie Woodland was ten years old when she suffered a cardiac arrest and brain injury as a result of a near-drowning episode during school swimming lessons.
In 2013, the case went to the Supreme Court (at [2013] UKSC 66, [2014] 1 All ER 482), which held that the school would have a non-delegable duty of care towards its pupils and that the school would be liable for the negligence of any swimming teachers they used to teach their pupils.
In the recent case, Blake J found that liability attached to both the swimming teacher and the lifeguard. This means Essex County Council will be liable for the swimming teacher’s negligence and the insurer will be liable for the lifeguard.
This “remarkable” case demonstrates that “evidence of witnesses to fact even 15 years after the index accident can still give cogent evidence even where they are at that time only around 10 years of age”, says Catherine Leech, consultant, Irwin Mitchell, who acted for the claimant through the Supreme Court proceedings.
Its ripples echo far and wide. Leech details examples of its influence, including on claimants injured while in foster care who have (so far, unsuccessfully) sought to argue that the local authority has a non-delegable duty of care. It could also be relevant to prisoners or care home residents.
Catherine Leech of Irwin Mitchell writes about the case in this week’s NLJ.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
