Who would have pegged it?

January 4, 2009

accident, Negligence

313-0100728a68uc436066m1

In Hall v. Holker Estate Co Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1422, the Court of Appeal upheld an appeal by the claimant for personal injury damages (£41,500) suffered as a result of an informal football kick around on a patch of grass at a caravan park. The incident occurred while the claimant was retrieving a football from the back of the net, but got his foot caught in the netting, and fell to the floor. Unfortunately, this action also tilted the frame and the crossbar collapsed forward onto the claimant striking him in the face. The evidence presented to the court suggested that the goalframe should have been pegged to the floor and that the defendants should have had a regular system of checking that these pegs were still present. Once the court could establish that the accident was caused because:

  1. pegs were missing
  2. this was a known risk
  3. a system of checks to detect missing pegs had been put in place by the defendants
  4. the defendant’s system had failed

The defendant’s failure to either rebut any of these charges, or to provide an adequate explanation as to why their system failed led to a finding of negligence.

Advertisements
, , , , , , ,

About Kris

Associate Professor in Sports Law, Staffordshire University; British Gymnastics Senior Coach

View all posts by Kris

Follow us:

Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: