Law reports: Injury at health and fun day was not fault of employer

The claimant, Robert Lee Uren, was participating in a recent health and fun day at an RAF base where he was stationed and sought damages for a neck injury he sustained rendering him tetraplegic.

One of the games, 'the pool game', was a relay race involving team members running up to an inflatable rectangular pool containing approximately 18" of water, getting over the side, retrieving a piece of plastic fruit and returning to the start.

The health and fun day was run and managed by Corporate Leisure, a company that provides corporate entertainment packages, which was responsible for supplying the pool. The employee was on duty on the day of the event but took part voluntarily and was aware of the water's depth having been thrown in the pool earlier by colleagues.

He then ran to the pool and launched himself over the side, head first, with his arms outstretched in front of him. His head hit the bottom of the pool breaking his neck and leaving him wheelchair-bound.

The employee contended that his employer, the Ministry of Defence, and Corporate Leisure were in breach of their duty to take reasonable care to ensure that he was safe in participating in the game. He believed head first entry had not been prohibited and it was reasonably foreseeable that competitors would adopt that form of entry.

Alternatively, he argued that once the game had commenced and contestants had been seen entering the pool head first the game should have either been stopped or a ban on head first entry imposed.

The employer and entertainment company argued that the game was reasonably safe and that all sporting activities involve some risk. The court gave particular consideration to the defendants' expert witness who provided evidence that the risk of serious injury was very small (1/130 000) and, therefore, the probability of serious injury was very remote.

As a result of this evidence, the employee's claim failed. The court accepted that the risk of serious injury posed by the game was very small and that did not mean that the defendants' breached their common law duty of care owed to him.

Comment

Such activities are almost never risk free and, therefore, a balance has to be struck between the level of the risk involved and the benefit the activity confers on the participants and society generally.

This case signifies a robust but pragmatic approach taken by the courts to assessing the extent of the duty owed by the event organisers, including employers, to protect participants from injury in activities such as these. It is true to say that risk will very rarely be eliminated but a balance must be struck between the level of the risk involved and the usefulness of the activity.

Andrew Kerr, BLM Manchester