The Law is Not in the Business of Discouraging High-Risk Adventure Sports

Adventure sports enthusiasts have a perfect right voluntarily to place themselves in danger and, as a High Court ruling showed, the law is not in the business of discouraging organisers of challenging and high-risk events.

The case concerned a very fit middle-aged woman who took part in a…

Sep 13, 2021

Stephanie ecate qjw2pjm8tmw unsplash 1024x681

Adventure sports enthusiasts have a perfect right voluntarily to place themselves in danger and, as a High Court ruling showed, the law is not in the business of discouraging organisers of challenging and high-risk events.

The case concerned a very fit middle-aged woman who took part in a demanding obstacle race. She was swinging between monkey rings when she fell to the ground, suffering serious injuries to her right leg and shoulder. She sought compensation from the event’s organisers on the basis that they had failed in their duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 to take reasonable care for her safety.

Ruling on the case, the Court noted that, prior to the event, she signed a waiver form by which she acknowledged that her participation gave rise to a risk of serious injury, even death. She knowingly and freely accepted all such risks. However, the Court noted that, as a matter of law, the form could not exclude the organisers from liability if the accident arose from their negligence.

Dismissing her claim, however, the Court noted that the monkey ring obstacle was particularly challenging and many other participants had also fallen. She and others taking part in the event were given adequate instructions on how to embark on the obstacle. A hay landing cushion had been provided and a claim that it had not been properly spread, so as to prevent bare patches, was rejected.

The Court observed that accidents of this type are an inherent risk of participation in adventure sports events and that no amount of care and vigilance by organisers can eliminate the possibility of such risks materialising. The woman had elected to take part in the event and was well aware of the dangers involved. Although she deserved much sympathy for her grave misfortune, the fact that she landed badly and suffered serious injury was a matter of mere chance.

Not Every Accident Can be Explained – Workplace Head Injuries Ruling

Judges are experts at uncovering the truth but, in rare cases, it is simply not possible to decisively establish the cause of an accident. That was so in the case of an HGV driver who had no memory of an incident which left him with life-changing head injuries. The man had been cleaning his tractor unit before he was found unconscious in the yard of the crane hire company he worked for. Due to the severity of his head injuries, he had no recollection of how he suffered two blows with a hard,…

Synthetic Football Pitch Triggers Information Rights Dispute

If you have environmental or health and safety concerns about a development in your area, you have a right to all the information you may need to mount a successful challenge. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) made that point in a case concerning the controversial installation of a synthetic football pitch. The rubber crumb pitch, made of thousands of end-of-life tyres, was close to homes, a primary school and a leisure centre. A local resident was concerned about the use of chemicals in the…

How to Conduct a Fair Redundancy Exercise – Guideline EAT Ruling

A redundancy process in which a decision to dismiss is effectively taken in advance of consulting an affected employee will almost never be fair. The point was made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the case of a nurse who was selected for redundancy solely because her fixed-term contract was shortly due to expire. The nurse worked in a research unit that was losing money and needed to shed staff. She was selected for redundancy for no other reason than that her contract was coming up…