Maylin v Dacorum Sports Trust (t/a XC Sportspace)

Where an activity carries inherent and obvious risks, the common law does not ordinarily require the occupier or activity provider to train, supervise or warn participants about those risks. This applies even where the participant pays to use the facility. A provider may nevertheless discharge any duty to warn by giving sufficient written information and displaying appropriate notices. The adequacy of those precautions is assessed on the evidence, including the participant’s knowledge and the visibility and content of the warnings.

Miss Emma Maylin claimed damages for a serious back injury sustained when she fell from a bouldering wall at a climbing centre operated by Dacorum Sports Trust. She was a novice and had received no safety briefing or supervision from the defendant’s staff. The claim was pleaded under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and in negligence, but the statutory claim was abandoned at trial because the accident arose from the inherent dangers of the activity rather than the dangerous state of the premises.

The preliminary issue was whether the defendant owed and breached a duty to provide an induction, supervision or warning about the risk of injury despite the presence of protective matting, and whether any breach caused the injury.

1. Claim dismissed. The court held that the claim failed on the basis that the risks of bouldering were inherent and obvious.
2. The risk of falling from the bouldering wall was plainly obvious. An awkward fall could cause serious injury, and no amount of matting could absolutely remove that risk. The claimant accepted that falling was an obvious risk, although she believed that the mat would prevent injury.
3. Applying Poppleton v Trusties of Portsmouth Youth Activities Committees [2008] EWCA Civ 646; [2009] PIQR 1, the court held that the law did not require the defendant to train, supervise or warn the claimant about those inherent and obvious risks. The fact that the defendant charged for use of the facility did not alter that conclusion.
4. In any event, the defendant had taken sufficient steps to draw the claimant’s attention to the relevant risks. She had read the participation statement stating that climbing involved a danger of personal injury or death. Notices at the entrance to the bouldering area warned that soft mats did not make bouldering safer and that broken or sprained limbs were common.
5. Because the claim failed on the duty and warning issues, it was unnecessary to determine the alternative argument based on volenti or contributory negligence. The parties were invited to agree an order reflecting the judgment.

Not stated in the judgment.