Climber was accountable

The claimant, an inexperienced adult climber, engaged in a simulated rock climb at the defendant's indoor climbing centre. Rules forbidding jumping were displayed outside the climbing room, but the claimant was not specifically offered them. The claimant attempted to jump from one wall to another, lost his grip and fell awkwardly onto the safety mat below. He was rendered tetraplegic and brought a claim on the grounds that the defendant failed to provide sufficient supervision and had breached s2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, which imposes a common duty of care.

At first instance the judge rejected the claim that there was anything unsafe about the premises. However, he held that the defendant should have warned the claimant not to jump and that the safety mat did not make it safe to do so. The defendant was held 25% liable (the claimant was held 75% contributory negligent).

The defendant appealed against the finding that it was in breach of its duty of care to the claimant. The claimant cross-appealed in relation to the extent that he was found contributorily negligent.

The Court of Appeal held that the defendant did not owe the claimant a duty of care to instruct or supervise him. Nor could the safety mat be characterised as a hidden or latent danger. The claimant freely undertook the jump that caused his injury and was aware of the inherent risk that he might fall. As an adult he was responsible for the consequences of a risk he knowingly accepted. Therefore the claimant's claim failed.