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
- Whether the Scout Association breached its duty of care in organising and supervising the “Objects in the Dark” game.
- 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.
