How is this the hotel's fault?

That does sound just a little bit judgemental! They are dead for goodness sake.

Can't quite see how it could be the hotel's fault.

no CCTV

The case seems to centre on the fact that the CCTV was out of order at the time of the incident, and that there should have been a lifeguard on duty until it was replaced.

There was no evidence that the couple had been drinking (and I don't see what relevance the fact that the woman was ten years younger than the man has!).

Sorry, my comments came out a bit judgemental, which I didn't mean. The point I was trying to make (badly) was that they were consenting adults and couldnt swim, and got into a pool so how is it the hotel's fault? There has to be a time when we take responsibility for our own actions surely?

Why go in the pool if you can't swim?

GillT57 I agree with you that it was entirely the couple's own fault. The pool was supposed to be monitored 24/7 though, and I suppose the families are just trying to find someone else to blame.

Was ridiculous having the deepest bit in the middle! You expect that to be at the opposite end to the shallow end. Really bad!

Yes. That could catch anyone out, even if they could swim!

All pools are marked showing the depth of the water. I wonder though if one of them got into difficulties and the other went to help?
Better in circumstances like this to get out and throw things into the pool that might work as buoyancy aids and call for help if possible.

We live in such a nany state that personal responsibility has been thrown out of the window to be replaced by our rights. Any problem is the fault of someone else.

The hotel, if they offer swimming pool facilities, have a duty of care for the safety and wellbeing of those who use the swimming pool. If they chose a design that, it was a foolish one and looking at the photograph (which is quite blurred) it seems that there is a no diving sign but I couldn't make out if there was advice on where the deep end is - if you are walking in the water, it would come as a heck of a shock to feel the floor fall away to form the deep part.

You don't have to be a non-swimmer to fall foul of the unexpected in a swimming pool. Before my thigh injury, I used to swim 50 - 80 lengths, four days a week; I once had cramp affect my calf and foot whilst swimming. As I was a strong swimmer, I tended to swim in the middle of the pool to leave the sides free for those who were not so comfortable in the water. Had I not been a strong swimmer, I think I would have experienced difficulty getting out (I had never had cramp but boy did it hurt).

Where people's lives are concerned, it is better to err on the side of caution. The hotel should have closed the pool until the CCTV was working again.

Quite - I agree HollyDaze, and that appears to be the families' point as well.

This is an issue about personal responsibility.

There are no CCT cameras at the seaside and people drown in areas where "dangerous currents" notices are displayed.

There are a lot of deaths from people swimming in quarries and reservoirs despite warnings about the effects of very cold temperatures in some of these bodies of deep still water.

People do stupid things and disregard dangers and warning notices. That is often where Death by misadventure comes in.

I doubt if that will ever change

There are no CCT cameras at the seaside and people drown in areas where "dangerous currents" notices are displayed.

But no-one built to oceans as a selling point to entice people in. The sea isn't an income generator in the same way that a hotel pool is. They know that a swimming pool will not only increase their star rating, it will also increase their charges per stay. A swimming pool in a hotel is no different to any other swimming pool that is offered for use by the public in return for a fee.

There are a lot of deaths from people swimming in quarries and reservoirs despite warnings about the effects of very cold temperatures in some of these bodies of deep still water.

As far as I'm aware, there are generally signs strictly forbidding swimming in those areas (there are signs at every single one of our reservoirs stating that).

I agree that it should be an issue about personal responsibility, Nelliemoser, but when a hotel promises round-the-clock pool surveillance and fails to deliver, it lays itself wide open to litigation. A sad sign of the times.

I don't see the point of CCTV cameras in swimming pools, unless there's a lifeguard monitoring it constantly when the pool is open, in which case you might just as well have a lifeguard.

Most of the hotel pools I have swum in haven't had lifeguards, but what they do and should have are warning notices about which parts of the pool shouldn't be entered by non-swimmers.

I agree with nellie it comes down to personal responsibility.

They should have kept the pool locked, because a child could get separated from its parents and wander in. The law changed many years ago, I got thrown out of a hotel pool late one night because of the changes. I had been allowed to use the pool whenever I liked as a friend of the manager, but the pool manager always hated it for some reason. He was delighted when the health and safety regulations changed.