Bryce Eddleston, aged 1 year, drowned in his family's swimming pool on 24 January 2010 after crawling through open bi-fold doors from the house to the pool edge. The pool lacked the required child-proof fencing specified in approved plans; instead, non-compliant café-style doors were installed without council approval or knowledge. The coroner found the death preventable, as it would not have occurred had the pool been constructed according to approved designs with proper 1200mm ARC fencing. Key failures included: the owner-builder's unexplained deviation from plans, the designer's signature on a compliance statement without site inspection, inadequate council oversight, and lack of regular pool safety inspections. This case highlights the critical importance of adherence to pool safety regulations, proper certification processes, and regulatory inspections.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes.
swimming pool not enclosed by child-proof fence as required by law
bi-fold/café style doors installed contrary to approved plans
bi-fold doors were not self-closing or self-latching
doors were in open position at time of drowning
lack of council inspection after pool filling
deviation from approved plans not detected or prevented
inadequate supervision of toddler
unattended access to pool area
Coroner's recommendations
The Minister for Planning should consider establishing a regular system of swimming pool safety inspections, such as the 4-yearly inspection regime that exists in Western Australia, to ensure compliance with pool fencing and safety requirements
This page reproduces or summarises information from publicly available findings published by Australian coroners' courts. Coronial is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any coronial court or government body.
Content may be incomplete, reformatted, or summarised. All court orders for redaction and non-publication are respected; documents with technically defective redaction have been excluded from the database entirely. Always refer to the original court publication for the authoritative record.
Copyright in original materials remains with the relevant government jurisdiction. AI-generated summaries and tagging are for educational purposes only, may contain inaccuracies, and must not be treated as legal documents. We welcome feedback for correction —