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.

There’s a Big Difference Between Assertive Management and Bullying

There is all the difference in the world between an assertive management style and one that descends into aggressive bullying. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, employers who fail to take effective steps to stamp out the latter behaviour expose themselves to severe reputational and financial consequences. The case focused on the stormy relationship between a charity employee and her line manager. Matters came to a head at a meeting when the line manager was seen to become…

HMRC are Clawing Back Furlough Payments Made in Error

It will come as no surprise to hear that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is making stern efforts to claw back sums paid in error under the COVID-19 furlough scheme. As one case showed, however, that process has left some reputable and entirely honest employers caught between a rock and a hard place. The case concerned two workers who started employment with a furniture company in late February 2020. Because they were taken on so late in the month, they were not paid for the first time until 26…

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…