Given that winter is just around the corner and the wellies for some will be seeing the light of day again pretty soon I thought you might be interested in this recent judgement. An outdoor pursuits company was not liable for injuries suffered by a claimant who had suffered catastrophic spinal injury when falling after throwing a wellington boot during a "welly-wanging" event it had organised. The risk of injury to the claimant was not such that steps should have been taken to guard against it: the injury was the result of a tragic and freak accident for which no blame could be established. CORNISH GLENNROY BLAIR-FORD v CRS ADVENTURES LTD (2012) The claimant (B) sought damages for personal injury from the defendant outdoor pursuits company (C). B was a teacher who, with other staff and pupils, had attended a residential adventure activity course operated by C. On the last day, C's staff had organised a "Mini-Olympics" event, including throwing a wellington boot in a game of "welly-wanging". To provide some type of handicapping to make it fairer for pupils participating, B was told to throw the wellington boot backwards through his legs. B put a lot of effort into his throw and swung down low, but released the wellington boot high into the air rather than a long distance away. As soon as he let go, he rotated forward and his head hit the ground. B suffered a catastrophic spinal injury resulting in permanent tetraplegia. B contended that C was liable for his injuries because its staff had asked him to adopt a method in throwing the wellington boot which was unsafe. He submitted that his injury was a logical and foreseeable consequence of throwing it in that way, and that C owed him a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in the conduct of its activities which it had breached by failing to conduct any adequate risk assessment. B argued that if C had carried out a risk assessment the method of throw would have been modified. C contended that the welly-wanging had been subject to a dynamic risk assessment and no further action was identifiable. It asserted that the accident was a chance event and that neither it, nor any similar accident causing serious injury, could have been foreseen. It was held that C ran an efficient and professional operation for the benefit of the public and schoolchildren in particular. It was an enterprise which provided immense social value. It had been correctly licensed and monitored and its systems had been complimented by regulators. Save for B's accident, its safety record was excellent and there had been no other recorded incidents in relation to welly-wanging. The Mini-Olympics were not regarded as an event comprising activities of such inherent danger that they came within any licensing requirements. Although there had been a formal risk assessment of the event as a whole, there was no formal assessment and no advance plan as to the method for handicapping teachers before the welly-wanging began. That was not, however, decisive. Formal written risk assessments were probably more effective in relation to static conditions or activities which were often repeated in a fairly routine way, and might be a less effective tool where a lot of variables came into play, as in the instant case, Uren followed. C could not be criticised for not carrying out a formal assessment of the welly-wanging: a dynamic risk assessment was acceptable and had been carried out. B's throw of the wellington boot was no ordinary one. The fact that the boot went up in the air rather than being thrown a long distance was powerful evidence that he had thrown it and fallen in an unusual way that was not, and could not have been, foreseen. The risk which needed to be foreseen by C was the risk of serious injury and not just the risk of any injury, Uren followed. On the evidence, the risk of injury to B was not such that steps should have been taken to guard against it. There was no foreseeable real risk: it was a tragic and freak accident for which no blame could be established
A just decision, I think, based solely off those facts. They couldn't foresee that he'd throw it like a mong, nor the severity of the accident that came about as a result of his actions. As for 'risk assessments' and other HSE guff, surely an adult can make his own risk assessment? If the company had told him to jump off the roof of a 3-storey building onto the hard ground, would he have done it? This 'there must be some one to blame' culture for every possible accident is sending us the way of the US. The only winners from that will be the lawyers.
