Rugby pitch safety judgment
by Robin Churchill, October 25th, 2011
The Court of Appeal rules on the extent of the duty of care to inspect a pitch before a game of rugby.
In SUTTON v SYSTON RUGBY FOOTBALL CLUB LTD (2011) the Court of Appeal gave a decision on whether a rugby club has a duty to inspect a pitch before a game or training session and the extent of the detail of that inspection.
Syston Rugby Club appealed against a decision that it was liable for personal injury sustained by Mr Sutton who had injured his knee when he fell on a broken cricket boundary marker during the course of a rugby training session organised by the club. The claimant maintained that one of the coaches (who had been present at the training session) should have inspected the pitch before the training session began and that there should have been a higher standard of inspection in relation to the ‘touch down’ ends of the pitch than for the rest of the pitch.
The Rugby Football Union risk assessment guidelines recommended that a check of the ground should be carried out to identify any foreign objects. The club had accepted that there should have been a general inspection of the pitch before the session but argued that such an inspection would only have been for obvious obstructions and would not have revealed the broken cricket marker as it did not protrude above the surface of the grass. The Court below had found for the Claimant and had imposed a higher standard of inspection in relation to the ‘touch down’ ends of the pitch than for the rest of the pitch. The club argued that an inspection of the pitch by quickly walking over it would have been sufficient to discharge its duty of care and that even if a more detailed inspection had taken place, it would not have revealed the broken cricket boundary marker.
The Court of Appeal held that it was obviously correct that there should have been an inspection of the pitch. It was appropriate that before a game or training session, a pitch was inspected and that an inspection of the pitch should have been conducted at a reasonable walking pace. This standard of inspection applied to the whole of a pitch rather than requiring a more careful degree of attention to be paid to the ‘touch down’ ends and it was unnecessarily complicated to require different standards of care for different parts of the pitch. Games of rugby were desirable activities within the Compensation Act 2006. The Court was of the view that it was important that standards were not laid down that were too difficult for ordinary coaches and match organisers to meet. The evidence was that even a reasonable inspection by walking over the pitch would not have revealed the broken cricket boundary marker. The appeal was therefore allowed.
FURMEDGE (AND OTHERS) -v- CHESTER-LE-STREET DISTRICT COUNCIL and BROUHAHA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (1) MAURICE AGIS (2)
by Robin Churchill, June 27th, 2011
In this recent case, the Court expressed its view on the apportionment of liability between a local authority (Chester-le-Street District Council) and the creator of an interactive art event and the company involved in the promotion and organisation of that event. The case also emphasises why it is critical to have a comprehensive and effective risk assessment. There are also some interesting indications as to how the Courts determine the duties of ‘occupiers’.
Dreamscape V was a substantial, inflatable, PVC structure created by Maurice Agis. It was 50 metres x 50 metres x 5 metres high (half a football pitch). Using ‘light, colour, form, movement and sound’ it created a ‘harmonious special experience’ when people accessed it and walked through its tunnels and voids.
In July 2006, it had been installed in a park for which the Council was responsible. It was tethered to the ground by ropes.
Tragically, on 23 July 2006, a gust of wind caused the inflated structure to break away from its anchorage and lift into the air. Two people inside it died as a result of their injuries, with a number of other people being injured, some quite seriously. Footage of the incident appears on YouTube.
The issue the Court had to deal with was the apportionment of liability between the Defendant Local Authority and (firstly) the organiser of the event and (secondly) the creator. The creator had since died, was uninsured and had no assets.
The Local Authority had accepted liability in the main claim on the basis that it had not carried out a proper risk assessment. However, the Local Authority claimed that the organisers of the event, Brouhaha International Limited (‘Brouhaha’), should share in the liability as it had supplied staff to work at the event. Brouhaha submitted that it was not an ‘occupier’ of the structure and that its employees were not in breach of any duty in relation to the erection or evacuation of the structure and, consequently, should not have any liability.
The Court held that Brouhaha became an occupier of the structure (for the purposes of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957) partly because its employees had played an active and central role in the initial construction of the structure, its employees had acted as stewards and accordingly had some degree of physical control over the premises. The Court held that Brouhaha ought to have carried out its own risk assessment or, at least, ought not to have relied upon an inadequate risk assessment supplied by the Local Authority. Brouhaha had also known from a previous exhibition that the structure was potentially unstable in windy conditions.
The Court indicated that, in the circumstances, it was inclined to apportion liability equally between the Local Authority and Brouhaha but because Brouhaha had knowledge that the structure was susceptible to instability when conditions were windy, the Court felt that the appropriate apportionment of liability was 45% to the Local Authority and 55% to Brouhaha.
The Judgment clearly shows why it is critical to have a comprehensive and effective risk assessment. The case also includes some useful indications as to how the Court interprets the duties of ‘occupiers’ for the purposes of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and other people who may have some degree of physical control over premises, even though they do not enter the premises in question.