Summary of Recent Cases – Substantive Law


A Company Operating An Indoor Rock-Climbing Wall Was Liable For Injuries Sustained By A Climber Who Had Jumped Down Off The Wall
Pinchbeck v. Craggy Island Ltd, QBD, 15/03/12
HHJ Curran QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) held that the defendant company that operated an indoor rock-climbing had breached its duty of care owed to the claimant climber who had jumped down from the climbing wall and injured her ankle. HHJ Curran QC held that the defendant had breached its duty of care in not providing the claimant with appropriate guidance on how to descend the wall. HHJ Curran QC further held that as the defendant had not taken taken all reasonable care for the claimant’s safety, the maxim of volenti fit injuria had very limited, if any, application. However, it was held that the claimant was contributorily negligent in that she had jumped rather than climbed down. The claimant’s contributory negligence was assessed at one-third.

A local authority did not owe a non-delegable duty of care to a pupil at its school to ensure her safety when she attended a swimming lesson arranged by the school but provided by a third party
Annie Rachel Woodland (By her Father & Litigation Friend Ian Woodland) v Essex County Council [2012], EWCA Civ 239, 09/03/12
It was held that the Court had not been wrong in striking out the C’s claim (Laws L.J dissenting). There was no good reason to move the law on from where it currently stood. A development along the lines sought by the C had to be a matter for the Supreme Court. It was not open to the Court to find that there was a relevant non-delegable duty of care which would lead to liability of the local authority in the event of negligence being found by the provider of the swimming lessons, the lifeguard or the swimming teacher. There had been nothing before the Court to justify such an extension of the existing law. There was no material on the basis of which the court could conclude that the imposition of a duty would be fair, just and reasonable.

MIB Did Not Incur A Relevant Liability For Injury Caused By An Uninsured Driver Where The Accident Occurred On A Private Paddock

Clarke v. (1) Clarke (2) Motor Insurers’ Bureau, QBD, 30/03/12
Judge McKenna (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) held that on the balance of probabilities, the claimant had been struck by a vehicle being driven by the uninsured first defendant’s vehicle on a private paddock and not on a public road. Accordingly, it was held that the accident had not occurred as a result of use of a vehicle on a public road and thus that the claimant’s claim was not in respect of a relevant liability which the MIB was required to meet.

April 16, 2012 В· Editorial Team В· Comments Closed
Posted in: Cases