obvious dangers and public attitudes

• Judges often refuse claims involving obvious dangers, especially for trespassers, reflecting a belief that people should take responsibility for avoidable risks.
• In Ratcliff v McConnell (1999), an adult was injured diving into a pool at night. The danger was obvious, so no duty was owed.
• In Revill v Newbery (1996), a trespasser was awarded damages despite being injured while committing a crime. The judge reduced the damages for contributory negligence, but the case caused public outcry, reinforcing the public view that trespassers shouldn't be protected.
• Lord Phillips in Donoghue stated that even when a trespasser knows about a danger, courts will rarely expect an occupier to provide protection. This limits the protection available to trespassers and prioritises property owners’ rights.