header-logo header-logo

03 March 2011 / Cathrine Grubb
Issue: 7455 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Sporting chance

Cathrine Grubb reports on when fun & games become a breach of duty

In the area of sports and recreation it has already been established that participants owe a duty of care to other participants and spectators. The legal duty owed to fellow participants is to exercise “all care that is objectively reasonable in the prevailing circumstances for the avoidance of infliction of injury on other contestants”: Caldwell v Maguire [2001] EWCA Civ 1054, [2001] All ER (D) 363 (Jun). The prevailing circumstances include the object of the contest, the demands made on its contestants, its inherent dangers, its rules, conventions and customs, and the standards of skill and judgment reasonably to be expected of the contestant. As was noted in the case of Caldwell, given the fast-paced nature of most competitive sports, a momentary lapse of skill or error of judgment made when subject to the stresses of competition is not enough to give rise to a breach of duty. In practice, the claimant is likely to have to show that the conduct

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll