## Facts

- Mr. Barnes sustained a serious head injury while participating in a game called “Objects in the Dark,” organised by the Scout Association.
- The game required scouts to collect blocks in a darkened hall.
- During the activity, Mr. Barnes collided with a bench.
- He alleged that conducting the game in darkness increased the risk of injury and constituted a breach of the duty of care by the Scout Association.

## Issues

1. Whether the Scout Association breached its duty of care in organising and supervising the “Objects in the Dark” game.
2. Whether the social value of the activity should be considered in assessing the standard of care owed by the Scout Association.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal overturned the initial finding of negligence against the Scout Association.
- It was held that playing games in the dark carried certain risks, but these were balanced by the recognised social value of scouting activities.
- The Association had taken reasonable precautions to minimise risk, including adequate supervision and ensuring the area was free from significant hazards.
- The social value of encouraging teamwork, self-reliance, and development among young people was a relevant factor.
- The court concluded that the small risk of injury was outweighed by the social benefits, and there was no breach of duty.

## Legal Principles

- Social utility may be considered by courts when assessing the standard of care in negligence cases.
- The standard of care is relative to context; activities with greater social value may justify a lower threshold of precaution, provided reasonable steps are taken to address foreseeable risks.
- The presence of social value does not eliminate the duty of care, but may influence what constitutes reasonable precautions.
- Courts must balance factors such as risk magnitude, likelihood and severity of harm, practicality of safety measures, and the social benefit of the activity.
- The approach in Barnes was applied in subsequent cases, such as Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 353 (QB), confirming social value is relevant but not a blanket defence.

## Conclusion

Barnes v Scout Association established that social value is a relevant factor when courts determine the standard of care in negligence. While it does not remove the duty of care, it influences what precautions are considered reasonable, requiring a balance between risk and societal benefit in each case.


Barnes v Scout Association [2010] EWCA Civ 1476