MacIntyre v Ministry of Defence

In adventurous training, the duty of care requires leaders to take reasonable steps to minimise foreseeable risks, while recognising the social value and deliberately challenging nature of the activity. Risk assessment is a continuing process rather than a single document. The court must assess decisions sequentially, by reference to the conditions known at the time, and must distinguish a tragic accident from negligence. A claimant must show both a breach of duty and that the breach caused or contributed to the injury. Formal qualifications are construed sensibly and purposively, having regard to their function and to complementary qualifications and practical experience. A reasonable decision to continue climbing in loose-rock terrain, together with the use of parallel climbing and full-length ropes, did not establish negligence where those methods neither created nor materially increased the relevant risk.

The claimant, a serving Army officer, suffered severe brain injuries when struck by falling rock during an authorised adventurous training climb on the Alpspitze in Bavaria. He alleged that the Ministry of Defence was negligent because the leaders lacked the necessary qualifications, the route across the Herzl Terrace had not been adequately assessed, and the leaders used unsafe climbing methods.

The trial concerned liability only. The central issues were whether the leaders were appropriately qualified, whether their decisions about route selection and continuing the climb breached the duty of care, and whether parallel climbing or use of the full rope length caused or contributed to the rock fall.

1. Qualifications. The leaders’ Joint Service Rock Climbing Leader and Mountain Expedition Leader (Summer) qualifications permitted them to lead the claimant across the Herzl Terrace. “Easily accessible crags” was construed sensibly as focusing on the accessibility of the climbing terrain, not on a precise technical definition of a crag. “Below the snowline” meant terrain where snow and ice mountaineering skills were not necessary for safe progress. The geographical fact that the climb took place in the Alps did not itself require an Alpine qualification.
2. Duty and standard. The defendant owed a duty to ensure that the climbing was properly considered and that reasonable decisions were taken about whether and where to climb. The leaders had to take reasonable steps to minimise the danger from rock fall. The standard was that of a reasonable climbing leader in the circumstances, assessed with regard to the likelihood and seriousness of injury, the social value of adventurous training, and the cost and practicality of precautions.
3. Risk assessment and route. Risk assessment was a dynamic process requiring continuous review. It was reasonable to continue after the party encountered loose rock, provided the danger was kept in mind and reasonable precautions were taken. The route was established, and the evidence did not show that another route would have reduced the risk.
4. Climbing method and causation. Parallel climbing and climbing to the full length of the ropes were not inherently inappropriate on this terrain. The evidence did not establish that either method caused or contributed to the rock fall. The precise mechanism of the fall could not be identified, and the leaders had taken reasonable precautions.
5. Disposition. There was no breach of duty and no negligence causing the accident. The claim failed.

First-instance decision. No prior or appellate decision is stated in the judgment.