Indoor Ski Slope Operator Not to Blame for Woman’s Agonising Fall

Some sports are inherently risky and unfortunate accidents inevitably occur for which no one is to blame. The High Court resoundingly made that point in the case of a woman who was grievously injured when she fell on an indoor ski slope.

The middle-aged woman had not skied for 35 years…

Sep 27, 2021

Ben koorengevel qtyerb h4pu unsplash 1024x683

The middle-aged woman had not skied for 35 years when she attended the ski slope with a view to honing her skills in preparation for a holiday. She was descending the learner slope when she fell, suffering a complex leg fracture. Despite reconstructive surgery she was unable to return to full-time work for a year and the long-term consequences of her injury persist to date.

In rejecting her personal injury claim against the slope’s operator, however, a judge noted that skiing is never risk free and that falls are suffered by skiers of every ability. Her accident was not caused by any defect in the snow surface, nor was the learner slope over-crowded. Although the operator’s record keeping and risk assessment required substantial improvement, it had not exposed her to a foreseeable risk of injury over and above the risk inherent in skiing.

Dismissing her appeal against that outcome, the Court could find no lack of logic or consistency in the judge’s conclusion that the accident arose from her voluntary participation in an enjoyable but risky sport. A nervous skier, she had probably been distracted by an out-of-control snowboarder passing close to her, but such incidents are commonplace on ski slopes.

The Court expressed sympathy for the woman for the terrible pain and longstanding consequences arising from the accident. Her honesty and thoughtfulness as a witness shone through, but she could not succeed in her claim.

Workplace Horseplay and Employers’ Responsibilities – Guideline Ruling

Irresponsible horseplay in the workplace can cause serious injury, but to what extent should employers be held indirectly – or vicariously – liable for such behaviour? The Court of Appeal considered that burning issue in a guideline case. A fitter was bending down to pick up a length of steel when a workmate placed two pellet targets on a bench close to his right ear. The workmate struck the targets with a hammer, causing a loud explosion. As a result, the fitter suffered noise-induced hearing…

Employment Judge’s Interventions Gave Rise to Apparent Bias – EAT Ruling

Judges are entitled to robustly manage the cases that come before them, but what they cannot do is give even an impression that they are taking sides. In a case on point, an employment judge’s interventions during a hotly contested hearing were found to have crossed the line into apparent bias. Following a hearing, which was held via video link during the COVID-19 pandemic, the employment judge upheld an office administrator’s complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. The employer challenged…

Employee Bonuses – A Commitment is a Commitment

When it comes to bonuses, commitments made to employees must be honoured. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in coming to the aid of a salesman whose employer prevaricated on its obligation to reward him with a six-figure sum following his successful closure of a multi-million-pound deal. The software salesman and his team spent many months negotiating the deal. His line manager later assured him that he would receive an exceptional six-figure bonus to mark his success and that the…