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.

ET Failed to Consider Context in Victimisation Claim, EAT Rules

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a woman’s appeal against the dismissal of her complaint of victimisation, finding that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had adopted too narrow a definition of what could constitute a protected act and had not sufficiently analysed the context in which the complaint that was said to be a protected act was made. The woman had worked for a pharmacy business since 2001. In 2018 she moved to another of the business’s stores, where she was the only black…

Was Restaurant Chef’s COVID-19 Redundancy Inevitable? Guideline Ruling

When employees are unfairly dismissed, it is commonplace for employers to assert that they would have lost their jobs in any event and that they have thus sustained no financial loss. As a case concerning a restaurant chef showed, however, such contentions are unlikely to be accepted in the absence of solid evidence. The chef was the most junior member of the restaurant’s 10-strong kitchen team of non-speciality chefs. Following a downturn in business arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, he was…

Proving a Link Between Unfair Treatment and Discrimination Can Be Tough

It may be relatively straightforward to prove you have suffered unfair treatment at work, but establishing that such treatment results from discrimination can pose a far greater challenge. This was certainly so in an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case concerning a forklift truck driver. The man launched proceedings following two fractious confrontations between him and colleagues in the car park of the premises where he worked for a logistics company. He alleged that he was falsely and…