Organising and Managing Events
This section of the site aims to assist clubs and associations in understanding their legal liabilities.
In this section of the site we aim to provide clubs and associations with guidance in relation to Race, Training and Event Management. We have updated this publication which is now available as a download on our website or can be obtained by contacting the Legal Team.
This publication provides advice to race committees and individuals within clubs and associations organising racing, cruising or training activities, under power and sail on inland and tidal waters. The purpose of the advice is to ensure that those organising and managing events understand their potential legal liabilites.
There have been a number of cases over recent years (outlined below) which indicate that the courts are reluctant to raise the standard of duty of care above that which a reasonable person/parent would provide and the courts are disinclined to absolve claimants from blame where they have voluntarily undertaken activities, albeit with inherent risks.
Tomlinson v Congleton [2007] EWCA Civ 1003
The claimant was injured when he dived into the defendant council's lake, which contained signs warning 'Dangerous water: no swimming.'
The County Court held, in view of the signs, that the council did not owe the claimant a duty of care as he was a trespasser.
The Court of Appeal held the defendant did owe a duty of care due to the seriousness of the risk of injury, the frequency of exposure to the risk and the failure of warning signs to curtail the extent to which the risk was being run.
The House of Lords found that the relevant characteristics of the lake (i.e. its shallowness) were matters which were obvious to the claimant and he did not need to be warned against the risk of diving in. Warning signs would give the claimant no information beyond what was already obvious.
'It would be unreasonable to impose on public authorities a duty to protect persons from self-inflicted harm sustained when taking voluntary risks in the face of obvious dangers. Even if swimming had not be prohibited and even if the defendant had owed a duty of care, that duty would not have required the defendant to prevent the claimant from diving or warn him against dangers which were perfectly obvious.'
Lord Hobhouse stated 'It is not, and should never be, the policy of the law to require the protection of the foolhardy or reckless few to deprive or interfere with the enjoyment by the remainder of society, of the liberties and amenities to which they are rightly entitled.'
Samuel Harris v Catherine Perry [2008] EWCA Civ 907
The claimant injured himself on the defendant's bouncy castle which she had hired for her sons' birthdays. The defendant had briefly turned her back on the bouncy castle to supervise the bungee run, during which time the incident occured.
The County Court held that the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant having given express permission for him to use it. The defendant breached her duty in failing to maintain continuous supervision of those using the bouncy castle and failing to forbid those using it from doing flips and somersaults and for failure to ensure that only children of a similar size and weight played on the castle at one time.
The Court of Appeal felt that although there was a duty to supervise this meant actively overseeing the children, ready to address any problem which arose. There was no need for continuous supervision as this was too high a standard of care.
Poppleton v Trustees of The Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee [2008] EWCA Civ 646
The claimant, an inexperienced climber, injured himself by jumping off the walls thereby falling onto shock absorbent matting at the defendant's climbing center. Climbing rules were posted on a board outside the climbing room which included instruction not to jump off the walls. The claimant did not read the rules. He had not been given any instruction and was not supervised.
The County Court held that the defendant had a common law duty to inform the claimant that there was a danger on falling onto the matting.
The defendant appealed and the Court of Appeal held that adults who chose to engage in physical activities which obviously gave rise to a degree of unavoidable risk may find that they have no means of recompense if that risk materialises sot that they are injured.
'There being inherent and obvious risks in the activity to which Mr Poppleton was voluntarily undertaking, the law did not in my view require the appellant (defendant) to prevent him from undertaking it, nor to train him or supervise him while he did it, or see that others did so. If the law required training or supervision in this case, it would equally be required for a multitude of other common place leisure activities which nevertheless carry with them a degree of obvious inherent risk - as for instance bathing in the sea. It makes no difference to this analysis that the appellant (defendant) charged Mr Poppleton to use the climbing wall, nor that the rules which they displayed could have been more prominent.'
The line of recent judicial decision is good news for sport and activity providers, showing that the Courts are averse to taking us down the road of a 'nanny state'. Thus provided clubs and associations act responsibly, where necessary providing appropriate supervision and training, check and maintain equipment, and carry out risk assessements they are unlikely to be held liable in negligence.
Insurance Certificates:
We also provide information on the pitfulls involved with clubs inspecting participants insurance certificates.
If you require further assistance please do not hesitate to contact the Legal Team Tel: 0844 5569519 Email: legal@rya.org.uk.
Related Downloads
Contact UsArticle Published: February 10, 2011 16:54