Quote:
Originally Posted by watchmaker
I think this would fall within the ‘Reasonable Person’ legal test which is why the instruction manual does not have a never ending list of scenarios you cannot place the watch in to.
Would a ‘reasonable person’ expect metal to react/oxidise/corrode when exposed to higher than prescribed concentrations of a corrosive/oxidising agent? I think the answer is yes they would.
Would a reasonable person be aware of the concentration of chlorine in a pool before they get in it? I think the answer is no. Which places responsibility with the pool owner/maintenance person.
The damage is not the OP’s fault, but that does not make it Rolex’s fault either.
|
The duty of care of the pool owner to those using the pool is to ensure effective sanitization and prevent hazard to health. If the water was not sanitized adequately and someone got a nasty infection, then that could be negligent. I’d argue that the pool owner does not owe a duty of care to their watches or other jewelry which they choose to wear in the water at their own risk.