Ahmed v MacLean

A mountain-bike instructor must provide tuition with reasonable skill and care. On a beginners’ course, that includes assessing each participant’s ability, tailoring instruction to the least able participant, teaching and repeatedly assessing the skills required for the terrain, and allowing progression only after adequate mastery and confidence. An instructor should select suitably safe practice terrain and should not delegate route selection where peer pressure may affect the choice. An adult participant retains responsibility for raising serious concerns about an instruction that appears beyond their ability, but misleading reassurance by the instructor may reduce the appropriate contribution. The court apportioned responsibility 80% to the instructor and 20% to the participant.

The claimant suffered paraplegic injuries while descending a mountain-bike trail during a beginners’ course provided by the defendant. He alleged negligence and breach of contract arising from inadequate tuition and supervision. The defendant denied breach and alleged that the claimant had caused or contributed to the accident by failing to exercise reasonable care for his own safety.

The court determined whether the defendant had provided the course with reasonable skill and care, including whether he had properly assessed the claimant’s ability, selected suitable terrain, taught the necessary skills and responded appropriately after the claimant’s first descent. It also considered the extent of the claimant’s responsibility for attempting the descent.

1. Duty. By reason of section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, the contractual relationship mirrored the common-law duty. The defendant was required to provide mountain-bike tuition with reasonable skill and care.
2. Assessment and progression. A beginners’ course requires an assessment of each participant’s actual skill level, followed by instruction and repeated individual assessment of the skills needed for the particular terrain. Tuition must be tailored to the least able participant. The defendant failed to make an adequate initial assessment and progressed the group without sufficient regard to the claimant’s capabilities.
3. Safe instruction. The defendant should have taught and assessed balance, observation and braking, including track standing and emergency braking, on less challenging terrain before permitting the group to attempt the steep slope. The claimant had not mastered the necessary skills or acquired sufficient confidence. The defendant also acted improperly by demonstrating only the main route, failing to direct the group initially to the easier route, and advising the claimant to begin from farther back so as to gain speed. In the circumstances, greater speed increased rather than reduced the risk.
4. Foreseeability and causation. It was reasonably foreseeable that a nervous novice might take the less obvious route to the left of the main track, particularly after being told to start from an unspecified point farther back. The defendant’s inadequate tuition and subsequent advice caused or materially contributed to the accident.
5. Contributory negligence. Applying the reasoning in Anderson v Lyotier (t/a Snowbizz) and Portejoie, [2008] EWHC 2790 (QB), the adult participant retained some responsibility for raising serious concerns about an instruction that appeared beyond his ability. The claimant’s hesitation, wobbling and first fall should have caused him to appreciate the risk and raise it. However, the defendant’s reassurance and advice to increase speed provided false reassurance and reduced the appropriate contribution.
6. Disposition. The defendant was at least partly liable. The claimant was held 20% responsible for the accident, leaving the defendant liable for 80%.