Page 39 - Misconduct a Reference for Race Officials

activities may, however, involve an unacceptable risk to children unless they are
subject to supervision, or event constant surveillance. Adults who expose
children to such circumstances or activities are likely to be held responsible for
ensuring that they are subject to such supervision or surveillance as they know,
or ought to know, is necessary to restrict the risk to an acceptable level.

The Court of Appeal found 1) there was no need for continuous supervision 2)
there was no requirement for the defendant to give a somersaults warning and 3)
the equipment was designed for both children and adults and the Judge at first
instance had applied too high a standard of care in determining the defendant
should ensure that only children/adults of a similar size should use the castle at
any one time.

Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd & Ano (2010)
The claimant suffered serious injury whilst participating in a health and fun day
organised by the Royal Air Force as a result of participating in a pool relay race.
The claim for damages was dismissed as the Court felt that the risk of serious
injury posed by the pool game was very small. The contestants had been
warned about possible hazards and were expected to control their impact with
the bottom of the pool. Enjoyable competitive activities were an important and
beneficial part of the life of the very many people who were fit enough to
participate in them. A balance had to be struck between the level of risk involved
and the benefit the activity conferred on the participants and on society generally.

Scout Association v Mark Adam Barnes (2010)
In this case a 13 year old scout was injured whilst playing a game called ‘Objects
in the Dark’ at a scout meeting which, as the name suggests, was a game that
was played in the dark. In the course of playing the game the scout collided with
a bench injuring his head and shoulder from which he eventually made a full
recovery. Both the trial and Appeal Judges held that the risks associated with the
game were increased when the lights were switched off. It could not be said that
the scout would have suffered the same accident if there had been full
illumination. They accepted that scouting activities were valuable to society (thus
considering the desirability of the activity under the Compensation Act 2006),
however that did not render every scouting activity, however, risky, acceptable.
Playing in the dark significantly increased the risks and the only justification was
the additional excitement. Darkness added no other social or educative value.
Whether the social benefit of an activity was such that the degree of risk it entailed
was acceptable was a question of fact, degree and judgment which had to be
decided upon on an individual basis. The Scout Association was held liable.

37