Remember this old chestnut? What a lot of trouble it causes, and what a lot of ineffective but expensive fencing and signage is provided by local authorities to little effect other than to appease insurers or fearful senior officers. The Ranger recently read this story:

The parents of a Flintshire toddler who drowned at a holiday park hope his death will prompt the government to introduce tighter controls on ponds.

This is, of course, a tragic tale, and you can learn more about it here. However, the Ranger supports the coroner's conclusion in this sad case:

It is healthy and natural for youngsters to show an interest in water, and [I do not] back calls from safety campaigners to fill in ponds. I can't say that I recommend that all ponds should be filled up, because they provide so much pleasure to people and to children. I can only say that ponds can be dangerous places and people should be aware of that.

The Ranger is aware of a most illuminating judgement of the House of Lords in 2003 on this topic, which those of us who look after public water bodies might find interesting. It concerns the case of Mr Tomlinson, who sued Congleton Borough Council when he jumped into a lake in their country park and broke his neck. Mr Tomlinson lost his case. The resulting judgement strongly supports the view that some hazards are, 'in themselves obvious' and that a landowner is not always obliged to protect everyone from everything. This is a principle which it is sometimes necessary to remind people of when they begin campaigns for more signs, fences, barriers, insurance, and so on.

The judgement contains many interesting and even a few entertaining parts, such as a comparison with the island of the Sirens, which concludes that "...the beach, give or take a fringe of human bones, was an ordinary Mediterranean beach. If Odysseus had gone ashore and accidentally drowned himself having a swim, Penelope would have had no action against the Sirens for luring him there with their songs.".
The judgement is highly relevant to all land managers, in fact mentioning rangers specificly at several points. It also refers to a host of other cases, some unlikely, such as the case of Miss Bessie Stone, who "was innocently standing on the pavement outside her garden gate at 10 Beckenham Road, Cheetham when she was struck by a ball hit for 6 out of the Cheetham Cricket Club ground", and some which include situations which we are often presented with. Here is a short extract:

"...it is not, and should never be, the policy of the law to require the protection of the foolhardy or reckless few to deprive, or interfere with, the enjoyment by the remainder of society of the liberties and amenities to which they are rightly entitled. Does the law require that all trees be cut down because some youths may climb them and fall? Does the law require the coast line and other beauty spots to be lined with warning notices? Does the law require that attractive water side picnic spots be destroyed because of a few foolhardy individuals who choose to ignore warning notices and indulge in activities dangerous only to themselves? The answer to all these questions is, of course, no. But this is the road down which your Lordships, like other courts before, have been invited to travel and which the councils in the present case found so inviting. In truth, the arguments for the claimant have involved an attack upon the liberties of the citizen which should not be countenanced. They attack the liberty of the individual to engage in dangerous, but otherwise harmless, pastimes at his own risk and the liberty of citizens as a whole fully to enjoy the variety and quality of the landscape of this country. The pursuit of an unrestrained culture of blame and compensation has many evil consequences and one is certainly the interference with the liberty of the citizen."

(My emphasis) The Ranger wonders, does this judgement contain a fundamental principle which should be put on the list for our own Constitution - if it is ever drawn up? It would be wonderful if so.

To see the whole judgement, click here or search on the full citation below:
Judgments - Tomlinson (FC) (Original Respondent and Cross-appellant) v.
Congleton Borough Council and others (Original Appellants and
Cross-respondents)