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.
