High-Risk Leisure Activities: Climbing Wall Case - Appeal Court Overturns Decision

A number of leisure and outdoor activities carry inherent

risks, in this particular case, climbing and other so called

"adrenaline" induced activities. The question for the

Court of Appeal was to what extent the provider of this centre

for the activity was under a duty to point out the inherent

risks - check for competency, and satisfy themselves that

instruction was not required.

In the case of Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth

Activities Committee (a charity) v Poppleton [2008] EWCA Civ

646, the Court of Appeal stated that victims of accidents

where risk is "plainly obvious" may have no

claim.

The Claimant in this case, attended the Defendant's

indoor climbing premises to engage in "bouldering"

which is low level rock climbing without ropes. He had visited

these premises a number of times previously but was a

relatively inexperienced climber. The Claimant was with a group

of friends, some of whom were more experienced. He was not

given any instruction or asked about his ability as a climber.

The Defendants, like many similar institutions, provided

suitable premises and equipment leaving users to do so sensibly

and without supervision.

There were three uncovered girders in the climbing room and

the floor was covered with 12 inch thick matting. There were

climbing walls rules on a board outside the room prohibiting

jumping off walls. Having seen his friend jump off one wall to

grab hold of a girder, the Claimant attempted a similar

manoeuvre, which was dangerous for a novice. He landed on his

head, sustaining severe spinal injuries.

At first instance, the court held that there had been no

breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 as there was

nothing wrong with the premises. Also, it was not reasonable to

impose a duty of care upon the Defendant to assess the

Claimant's competency as a climber or to provide training

or supervision before allowing him to use the facility. However

there was a duty at common law to inform the Claimant about the

dangers of falling onto the matting, so that he was not misled

into believing that it was safe to fall off the wall as there

was matting in place. The Judge held the Claimant 75% to blame,

as he had carried out a dangerous manoeuvre beyond his

capabilities.

The Defendants appealed and the Claimants cross-appealed, on

the basis that the Judge should have found that the scope of

the Defendant's duty was greater than he did. The Court of

Appeal unanimously overturned the high court ruling stating

that it...