Mr Pollock, 39, suffered spinal and brain injuries in the July 2010 accident at the Henley on Thames home of Enda and Madeline Cahill, where he was staying for the Royal Regatta.
Mr Pollock, originally from Co Down but now living in Dublin, restricted his damages claim to the limit of his friends’ insurance policy — £2m (€2.9m) — so that they would not have to pay anything personally, which meant it was a fraction of its full value.
The issue of damages will be considered at a later date by Mr Justice William Davis after his ruling yesterday on the question of liability.
During the case, the judge heard that, despite becoming blind in 1998, Mr Pollock went on to compete in ultra endurance races across deserts, mountains, and the polar ice caps and was the first blind person to race to the South Pole.
He also won silver and bronze medals for rowing at the Commonwealth Games, completed the Round Ireland yacht race, and set up a successful motivational speaking business.
Mr Pollock, who is now paralysed from the waist down, told the court the most likely explanation for the accident was that he was on the way to the bathroom when he became disorientated and fell out of the open window.
In his ruling, the judge said Mr Pollock’s athletic achievements would have been notable for someone without any disability but, given his blindness, they were remarkable.
“The events of 2010 have meant that Mr Pollock no longer can undertake the athletic challenges of which he was capable before his fall. Having overcome one disability, he now has had to come to terms with another.”
The judge said he was satisfied Ms Cahill had opened the window in the bedroom used by Mr Pollock and that he fell through it as he was trying to make his way to the bathroom having just woken. “He had lost his internal compass. When he got to the window he believed that he was at the door. He had forward momentum because of that belief.”
The judge added that he was satisfied that the Cahills failed to discharge the common duty of care they owed as occupiers.
“The open window was a real risk to Mr Pollock. They created that risk. They ought to have appreciated the risk and taken steps to prevent it by keeping the window closed or by warning Mr Pollock about it with particular reference as to the extent of the drop from the window.”
Solicitor Ben Rogers said later the damages recovered by Mr Pollock, who was not in court, were essential to assist him with his additional care and rehabilitation.