Lennon v Gympie Motel (BN 3451616)

The case of Lennon v Gympie Motel (BN 3451616) involved the plaintiff, Lennon, who suffered injuries while using a pool at the defendant's motel. Lennon was twelve years and nine months old at the time of the incident. The motel had a sign requiring adult supervision of children using the pool, but there were no signs prohibiting diving or indicating the depth of the pool. The court had to decide if the motel's failure to display such signs constituted a breach of duty of care, whether this breach caused Lennon's injury, and if Lennon was contributorily negligent.

The court considered several legal issues, including whether Lennon's injuries were a result of diving into the pool, if the motel had a duty to take steps to reduce the risks of injury by having depth markers and/or signs prohibiting diving, and if taking such steps would have prevented the injuries. Additionally, the court assessed whether Lennon's injuries would have been avoided if the motel had displayed the signs and whether Lennon was contributorily negligent.

The court found that the motel had a duty to warn of the dangers of diving and the depth of the pool, especially given that Lennon was a child. It was more probable than not that Lennon's injuries occurred as a result of diving into the pool, and that the motel's failure to display signs prohibiting diving and/or indicating the depth of the pool was a breach of the duty owed to Lennon. The court also found that the motel's breach of duty was causative of Lennon's injury. Regarding contributory negligence, the court found that Lennon was 15% contributorily negligent.

The court ordered that the liability of the defendant to pay Lennon damages should be apportioned as to 85 per cent against the defendant and 15 per cent against Lennon. The court also noted that it would hear the parties as to costs.