Rugby Field Inspection Adequate not detailed
The claimant was injured training for rugby. His knee was hurt by a sharp object left behind by previous users, but almost hidden. He said that the defendants were negligent in not having inspected the pitch before training. The club appealed saying that whilst it could be expected to see objects on the surface, a more detailed inspection was not to be required. The RFU guidelines said it should be inspected.
Held: The club’s appeal succeeded. A question of causation was a mixed one of fact and law. Here the court had been wrong to hold that there was a higher duty to inspect the touchdown areas. The grass had been lush, and a witness inspecting the area immediately after the accident had not located the object. A reasonable ‘walk-over’ inspection of the pitch beforehand would not have revealed it either.
Longmore, Rimer LJJ, Warren LJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1182
Bailii
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others HL 20-Jun-2002
The claimants suffered mesothelioma after contact with asbestos while at work. Their employers pointed to several employments which might have given rise to the condition, saying it could not be clear which particular employment gave rise to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Negligence
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.445858
