Competitor Gravely Injured During Sporting Event Receives £3 Million Payout

Participants in potentially dangerous sports usually understand the risks they are taking. However, as a High Court case showed, it does not necessarily follow that they are disentitled from receiving compensation in the event of an accident.

The case concerned a young man who came to…

Mar 08, 2021

Pexels alexandr podvalny 345522 1024x681

Participants in potentially dangerous sports usually understand the risks they are taking. However, as a High Court case showed, it does not necessarily follow that they are disentitled from receiving compensation in the event of an accident.

The case concerned a young man who came to grief whilst riding a wheeled vehicle along a rough woodland track as part of an organised event. He went over a hill at about 35 mph before losing control and colliding with a number of logs beside the taped-off track. He suffered a severe brain injury which left him functionally blind, wheelchair dependent and in need of 24-hour care.

Proceedings were launched on his behalf against the event’s organiser on the basis that the presence of unpadded logs beside the track created an unusual and unnecessary risk to competitors. In robustly disputing liability, however, the organiser asserted that he had voluntarily engaged in a sport that carried with it an obvious risk of injury. Competitors had walked the course prior to the event; the track had been inspected and the position of the logs was not considered dangerous.

Following negotiations, however, the organiser agreed to settle his personal injury claim for a £3 million lump sum without making any admission of liability. In approving the compromise, the Court found that it represented a reasonable assessment of litigation risks and was in the man’s best interests.

Pregnancy ‘Played a Part’ in Redundancy Decision – Discrimination Ruling

Maternity leave is every expectant mother’s entitlement and, if you feel that you have suffered pregnancy discrimination, you should contact a solicitor without delay. The point was powerfully made by the case of a woman whose pregnancy played a part in her employer’s decision to make her redundant. Having twice become pregnant, the woman took successive periods of maternity leave which together lasted over two years. Not long after returning to work, she became pregnant for a third time and…

No Transfer of Vicarious Liability Under TUPE, High Court Rules

When a transfer of a business takes place to which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) applies, does any vicarious liability of the original employer to a third party for wrongdoing by an employee transfer to the new employer? The High Court has answered that question with a resounding ‘no’. A woman was seeking damages for wrongs suffered while she had been a hospital inpatient. She claimed that the company that had owned the hospital was responsible…

Women are More Likely to Bear Childcare Responsibilities – That’s a Fact

Judges do not operate in a vacuum and are entitled to take the view that some facts are so obvious that there is no requirement to prove them. In an important ruling, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that that principle applies to the fact that women are more likely to bear childcare responsibilities than men. The case involved a community nurse who was primary carer for her three children, two of them disabled. Due to her responsibilities as a mother, she worked only on Wednesdays…