Factual and Procedural Background
On 8 October 2016, the Plaintiff participated in a Bear Grylls Survival Race held at Trent Park in North London. During the event, while attempting an elevated monkey ring obstacle known as "the Jungle," the Plaintiff fell and sustained serious injuries to her right leg and shoulder. At the time, the Plaintiff was fifty-four years old. The Plaintiff brought a claim against the Defendants alleging breach of section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, contending that the Defendants failed to take reasonable care for her safety. Both Defendants denied liability and causation and alternatively pleaded contributory negligence. The parties agreed on the quantum of General Damages at £65,000, but other heads of damage, including loss of earnings, remained in dispute.
The First Defendant was the overall organiser of the event and received the Plaintiff’s entry fee. The Second Defendant and a Part 20 Defendant were subcontractors responsible for course design, obstacle planning and management, staffing, and risk assessments. The Part 20 proceedings were settled before trial. No contribution proceedings were pursued between the First and Second Defendants, who were treated as jointly and severally liable for liability purposes. The trial involved witness evidence but no oral expert testimony, relying instead on written expert reports and a joint expert statement. Medical evidence was agreed.
The trial was conducted remotely via Teams without any procedural difficulties or injustice.
Legal Issues Presented
- The precise circumstances of the Plaintiff's accident.
- Whether instruction was given to the Plaintiff by the marshal regarding the method to be employed when leaving the platform onto the monkey rings.
- If no instruction was given, whether the absence of such instruction materially contributed to the accident and/or the severity of injuries.
- Whether there was a failure to maintain an adequate landing surface (redistribution of hay), and if so, whether this caused or contributed to the injuries.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Defendants breached their duty by failing to implement control measures identified in their own risk assessment, specifically failing to instruct participants to start from a seated position and use the heel-bar on the platform.
- The lack of instruction increased the risk of accident and severity of injury.
- The landing surface was inadequately maintained, with hay unevenly distributed, failing to provide sufficient cushioning.
- Following prior accidents at earlier events, additional safety measures should have been adopted, including the exclusion of the Jungle obstacle from the 5km race or increased staffing levels.
Defendants' Arguments
- Their duty was discharged by providing a reasonably safe obstacle course; absent design or construction defects, no liability arises.
- There was no legal duty to provide training, supervision, or instruction unless expressly or impliedly promised.
- Reliance on Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee v Poppleton [2008] EWCA Civ 646, where the Court of Appeal held that inherent and obvious risks do not impose a duty to train or supervise participants.
- Risk assessments do not legally require communication of control measures to participants.
- The Defendants contend that marshals did give appropriate instruction to adopt a seated position and use the heel-bar.
- Redistribution of hay was carried out as required, and any failure to do so was not causative of injury.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee (a Charity) v Poppleton [2008] EWCA Civ 646 |
Established that inherent and obvious risks in an activity undertaken voluntarily do not impose a legal duty to provide training or supervision absent an express or implied promise.
|
The Court considered this precedent in assessing whether the Defendants owed a duty to provide instruction or supervision. It distinguished the case by confirming that while no duty to train generally arises, once Defendants stipulate instructions in a risk assessment, they assume responsibility to communicate those instructions.
|
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court carefully examined the facts surrounding the Plaintiff's accident, including conflicting accounts of whether she fell from the first or second monkey ring. The Court found it most probable that the Plaintiff had successfully gripped the first ring and fell while attempting to grasp the second. This fact was significant in assessing causation.
Regarding the duty to give instruction, the Court held that the Defendants owed a duty under section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 to provide reasonable care, which included giving instruction on the appropriate method to set out from the platform. The Court rejected the Defendants' argument that no duty to instruct arose simply because instruction was not promised or mandated by law. Instead, by compiling a risk assessment stipulating that participants should start from a seated position and use the heel-bar, the Defendants implicitly assumed a responsibility to communicate this advice.
The Court found credible the evidence of the marshal who testified that she gave clear, audible instructions to participants to start seated and use the heel-bar. Photographic evidence and testimony from other participants supported that such instruction was given after the Plaintiff’s accident. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff did not hear or act on the instructions, possibly because she observed others starting from a standing position and chose to imitate them.
On the issue of the landing surface, the Court accepted that the use of hay was within a reasonable range of options and found the evidence that marshals redistributed the hay as required to be reliable. Even if there had been a failure to redistribute hay adequately, the Court found no causal link to the Plaintiff's injuries.
On causation, the Court held that even if no instruction had been given, the absence of instruction was not a material cause of the accident because the fall occurred while the Plaintiff was attempting to grasp the second ring, by which time the transition from the platform was complete. The injury was thus more likely caused by loss of grip or strength rather than the method of setting off.
The Court found the Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, as it was reasonable and legitimate for her to set off from a standing position, following the example of others, and she cannot be faulted for losing grip during a challenging obstacle.
Holding and Implications
The Court's final ruling was that the Plaintiff's accident and injuries were not caused by any breach of duty on the part of the Defendants. The Defendants had taken reasonable care in designing and managing the obstacle course, including risk assessments and instructions. The Plaintiff’s accident was an inherent risk of participation in such an event.
DISMISSED
The direct effect of this decision is that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendants fails. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling reinforces the principle that while organisers owe a duty to take reasonable care, inherent risks in challenging physical activities cannot be entirely eliminated, and participants assume such risks when voluntarily engaging. The judgment underscores the importance of risk assessments and the communication of safety instructions but also recognises the limits of liability where participants do not heed such instructions.