The Bosworth Water Trust v SSR & Ors

A business providing recreational facilities must take ordinary and basic steps to identify and mitigate foreseeable risks to users. Where children are given potentially dangerous equipment, an obvious risk may still require a warning or safety instruction, particularly where a simple rule would materially reduce the risk. The content of a parent’s duty to supervise children depends on the circumstances, including the nature of the activity, the level of supervision intended, and what the parent knows about the child’s behaviour. A clear instruction may be required where the parent is not closely supervising and knows that the child requires firm handling.

A nine-year-old claimant lost the sight of one eye after being struck by a metal putter swung by a ten-year-old child during a birthday visit to a crazy-golf course operated by The Bosworth Water Trust. The trial judge found Bosworth liable for failing to undertake a risk assessment and provide clear safety instructions, but dismissed the claim against the child’s parents.

Bosworth appealed its liability. The claimant appealed the dismissal of his claim against the child’s mother. The central issues were whether Bosworth had adopted too high a standard of care, whether the risk was foreseeable and required warning, whether causation was established, and whether the mother had breached her own duty of care.

1. Bosworth’s appeal was dismissed. The claimant’s appeal against the child’s mother was allowed. The claim against the child’s father did not arise because he had delegated responsibility for the children to the mother.
2. Bosworth owed a duty to take reasonable steps to keep users safe. A business providing recreational facilities should undertake a risk assessment before inviting the public to use them. That is an ordinary and basic safety requirement, not an excessive standard of care.
3. The risk was foreseeable. Children using metal putters might cause serious injury by swinging them inappropriately, particularly when other children were nearby. Although the risk was obvious, that did not remove the need for mitigating measures. Children lack the insight of adults into risky activities, and a simple rule against raising the putter above a safe height would have been inexpensive and appropriate. The court took account of the factors identified in section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006.
4. The trial judge was entitled to find that a clear instruction would have prevented the accident. That finding was supported by evidence that the child was amenable to firm instructions in sporting contexts. The causation challenge was also unavailable as an attack on factual findings which had not been challenged in the grounds of appeal.
5. The mother owed a duty of care in the circumstances. The content of that duty depended on the arrangements made for supervising four boys, the fact that she was outside the course and not watching continuously, the absence of instructions from Bosworth, and her knowledge that her son required firm handling. In those circumstances, a firm and clear instruction not to swing the club was the minimum required. Its omission was negligent and caused the injury.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division), [2018] EWHC 444 (QB): Bosworth’s appeal against liability was dismissed. The claimant’s appeal against the dismissal of the claim against the child’s mother was allowed.
• Leicester County Court: HHJ Hampton found Bosworth liable but dismissed the claim against the child’s parents.