The courts have recently given guidance on a sports club’s liability for hazards at its premises that cause injury and on the circumstances when a sports club can be liable for injury caused by one player to another on its grounds.

In one case a 16-year old rugby player fractured his knee-cap during training on a club’s training ground when he fell onto a broken plastic cricket boundary marker that was hidden in the grass. This ended a promising career. He claimed the club had breached the legal duty of care it owed to him because it had not carried out a pitch inspection, or an adequate one. The County Court agreed, and awarded him £54,000 compensation.

The Court of Appeal reversed the County Court decision. It said that the law should not impose a duty of care that is too difficult for ordinary sports clubs and their coaches to meet. In this case, the boundary marker was in lush grass and therefore well hidden. No one had seen it until the accident. Even after the accident some witnesses said that they could not see it without using their hands to find it, even when only two feet away from it.

The Court said that a club’s duty of care would be satisfied if there was a pitch inspection by a coach walking at a ‘reasonable’ pace. In this case, a coach making such an inspection would have been unlikely to spot the boundary marker. The club had not therefore breached its duty of care.

In another case, Mr Phee, an inexperienced golfer, was hit in the eye by a ball while he was walking from the sixth green to his next tee. The other player had shouted the usual warning of ‘fore!’. Mr Phee lost his eye and brought a personal injury claim against both the club and the other player. It was agreed that, if the player and/or club was liable, damages would be £400,000, but both denied liability.

Mr Phee argued that the club owed him a duty of care. He said it should have carried out a risk assessment of the course but had not done so. The club argued that there had been no previous accidents so it had not breached its duty of care.

Mr Phee also argued that the other golfer owed him a duty of care, which he had breached by playing his shot when Mr Phee was within range. The other player argued that he had not breached his duty of care because:

• Golf had social value and was not a risk-free sport, so any duty of care should be correspondingly low.
• The shot had been a freak, and not reasonably foreseeable.
• Mr Phee was partly to blame for not taking adequate precautions when he heard the shout of ‘fore’.

The court agreed with Mr Phee on both counts. It ruled that the club should have carried out a risk assessment. If it had, there should have been warning signs at the place where Mr Phee was hit, or on the 18th tee where the other golfer had played his shot. The club therefore bore 30 per cent of the liability.

It ruled that 70 per cent of the liability lay with the other golfer. It said that he should have been aware of the risk to Mr Phee, and that Mr Phee had responded appropriately to the shout of ‘fore’.

Recommendations

Coaches at sports clubs should carry out a risk assessment of their grounds and procedures, and, at the very least, carry out a pitch inspection before training and matches, at a reasonable pace.

 Sports clubs should:

• Carry out an initial and periodic risk assessment of their grounds, irrespective of whether there have been previous accidents.
• Particularly, where there are risks, consider signage to warn players and others of those risks.
• Review their insurance arrangements periodically.

Case refs:

 Anthony Phee v James Gordon [2011] CSOH 181
Sutton v Syston Rugby Football Club, CA, 20/10/11

For more information please contact Jenny Chambers at Shulmans on 0113 297 8945 or at jchambers@shulmans.co.uk