RUGBY INJURIES AND THE LAW

I have noted with interest the outcome of the recent case of Sutton v Syston Rugby Football Club.  An interesting decision for those working in the field of personal injury.  In this case, the Court of Appeal provided useful guidance on the duty of care owed by rugby clubs to their members and visitors. The key issues are summarised below which no doubt will be of interest to rugby players, referees and grounds men.

 

Sutton v Syston Rugby Football Club (2011) - Case Background

 

The claimant, Jack Sutton, was a member of the defendant rugby club. On the 2nd of July 2007, he took part in some pre-season training which involved a tag rugby match (a game were there are no rugby tackles).

 

During the game, Mr Sutton attempted to score but as he dived to the ground he sustained a personal injury involving a severe laceration to his right knee, which was caused by a plastic object sticking out of the pitch. Although he is now back to playing rugby again, it is thought that Mr Sutton will have problems with his knee later in life. 

 

The Defendant’s Duty of Care

 

The plastic object that caused the injury was a broken off part of a cricket boundary marker which had been left behind a few days earlier by the cricket club who share the same pitch with the defendant.

 

The defendant rugby club admitted they had a duty of care to Mr Sutton under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 to ensure that reasonable care was taken so that the claimant and other visitors to the club would be safe on the club's premises. However, it was the club’s view that a “brief” walk over inspection of the pitch was enough to discharge their duty of care.

 

Judgements

 

It was the trial judge’s view that a “brief” walk over inspection of the pitch was inappropriate and that the pitch should instead have been covered at a “reasonable walking pace”. He concluded that a reasonable inspection of the pitch would have likely resulted in the finding of the marker stump that caused Mr Sutton’s injury.

 

The defendant rugby club took this decision to the judges in the Court of Appeal who also concluded that the pitch should have been inspected before the game at a “reasonable walking pace”.  If this is done by a coach or match organiser ahead of a game or training session, then a club’s duty of care in relation to such an inspection will be satisfied.

 

However in this particular case, the Court of Appeal decided that even a reasonable walk over the pitch ahead of the game would have been unlikely to result in the finding of the protruding boundary marker.  The defendant's appeal was therefore upheld and Mr Sutton will no longer be able to recover any compensation for the laceration that he sustained to his knee.

 

Conclusion

 

The guidance in Sutton v Syston Rugby Football Club will also be relevant to other pitch based sports such as football, cricket and field hockey.  Individual case facts will determine whether a pitch inspection carried out before an accident was walked over at a “reasonable walking pace”'. 

 

Nevertheless, those who are involved in organising pitch based sporting events should always take heed of the advice laid down in this case and ensure that their duty of care has been satisfied ahead of the relevant sporting activity, because if they do not and someone incurs an injury as a result, then a personal injury claim may well ensue.

 

Goodmans Law are specialists in dealing with clinical negligence and personal injury claims.  For more information please contact us on 0800 073 0385 (0151 257 6000) or by email at FRT@goodmanslaw.co.uk

Our First Response Team is available from 8am to 8pm every business day.
 

Name:

Comment:

Submit Comment

« Back to Blogs