Claimant fails to prove Defendant’s roller disco breached the Occupiers Liability Act

Forbes was recently successful at trial in defending a roller disco against a claim under Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and negligence.

The Claimant was an experienced (ex-professional) roller skater who attended a roller disco event which was run by the Defendant company.  He had been to many similar events before and was skating around with a friend when he said he was struck by a child who had been pushed by another skater during the course of a game of “tag”.  The Claimant was knocked to the floor and sustained a nasty wrist fracture which continued to cause him problems as of the date of trial.

The Claimant alleged that he had no idea that a game was being played and that it was part of an organised birthday party that he had no idea was taking place. If there had been a tannoy announcement, he did not hear it because the music was loud and the tannoy was poor quality.   The child had been pushed because, when the game began, skaters started speed skating all over the place to try and catch each other, which meant that they were not following the standard direction of travel. He also claimed that the person who pushed the child was a known trouble-maker who had been banned from other events.   He alleged that the rink was crowded with people and it was foreseeable that an accident would occur if a game was played in those circumstances.  His evidence in his subsequent witness statement was that the child was pushed over in front of him and, although he tried to react by jumping, it was too late to do so and he collided with him.

The Defendant stated that the Claimant was aware that a birthday party was taking place as it had been advertised on Facebook along with the event details itself, which is where the Claimant saw that it was taking place.  In addition, when he attended the event he tried to get into the party for free as an invitee, when he wasn’t.  Signs were displayed on the walls asking people to use the supplied safety equipment and notifying them that games would be taking place.  The game was announced on the tannoy before it started and customers were asked to leave the rink.  The child was not pushed by a known troublemaker at all or, if he was, the Defendant had no knowledge of that and could have done nothing to prevent it.  There were only 26 people present and yet the event capacity was closer to 75. Finally, the child fell over some distance in front of the Claimant which should have given him plenty of time to react, and he only failed to do so because he was talking to his friend and not looking where he was going.

The Defendant was supported at trial by an independent witness who confirmed that the Claimant was looking sideways at his friend when the incident occurred.  He had an unobstructed view from around 3-4 metres away and he saw the child fall first, sliding towards the Claimant’s direction of travel.  The Claimant did not see him and did not react, skating straight into him.

At trial, the Claimant was inconsistent in that he claimed under cross-examination that he was struck by the child but then backtracked and admitted he fell over him when he was already on the ground.  One of his witnesses confirmed that they heard the tannoy announcement and left the rink accordingly, suggesting that it was perfectly audible, and another said that they saw the accident with an unobstructed view, which suggested that the rink was not as busy as claimed.

Given the evidence presented, the Judge dismissed the claim with a finding of fact that the Claimant was not looking where he was going at the material time and that he would have been able to avoid the incident if he had been.  He had failed to prove a breach of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and furthermore, there had been no failings in the planning or arranging of the event. It was reasonable for the Defendant to allow the Claimant the choice as to whether to use PPE or not, given his experience.

Forbes Comment

This case is a useful reminder that the occurrence of an accident does not in itself create a liability on the Defendant. Proving a breach of duty remains the burden of the Claimant.

If you would be interested in more information on the duty of care owed by those organising sport or leisure activities please do not hesitate to contact us.