Page 41 - Misconduct a Reference for Race Officials

Kylie Grimes v David Hawkins & Ano (2011)
The claimant was seriously injured when diving into a swimming pool at a private
home owned by the defendant. The Judge held that ‘the defendant was not
required to adopt a paternalistic approach to his visitors, all of whom were adults
who were making choices about their behaviour, exercising their freewill. I do not
accept that it is incumbent on a householder with a private swimming pool to
prohibit adults from diving into an ordinary pool whose dimensions and contours
can be clearly seen. It may well be different if there were hidden or unexpected
hazards but there were none here’.

It would seem that the Courts are reluctant to raise the standard of duty of care
above that which a reasonable person would provide. They appear equally
reluctant to absolve claimants from all blame where they have voluntarily
undertaken activities albeit with inherent risks. Responsible adults voluntarily
undertaking activities are responsible for themselves. Provided equipment is
checked and maintained a defendant’s duty of care towards a claimant extends
only as far as providing safe and suitable equipment.

Sutton v Syston Rugby Football Club Ltd (2011)
This case involved a rugby player who 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 Court held that the club owed its players a duty of care to
conduct an inspection of the pitch, at a reasonable walking pace, before a game
or training session. However, the club was not liable for the injury sustained
where such inspection would not have revealed the object that had caused the
injury. The Court went on to say that it was important that standards were not laid
down that were too difficult for ordinary coaches and match organisers to meet.

39