Learning Outcomes
This article examines specific situations where the standard of care in negligence is modified. It covers the standard expected of participants in sporting events and how the potential benefits or social value of a defendant's actions are considered when determining breach. After studying this article, you will understand the legal principles governing these areas and be able to apply them to SQE1-style multiple-choice questions involving scenarios related to sports injuries and emergency actions.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, you need to understand the factors courts consider when determining if a defendant has breached their duty of care, moving beyond the basic 'reasonable person' test. This involves applying the correct standard in specific contexts, such as sports, and appreciating how the purpose or social utility of conduct is balanced against associated risks. As you review this topic, pay particular attention to:
- the standard of care expected from participants in sporting activities
- the relevance of the rules and conventions of a particular sport
- how the social utility or potential benefits of the defendant's actions influence the standard of care
- the application of these principles in emergency scenarios.
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
- What standard of care is generally applied to a participant during a competitive sporting event?
- In the context of negligence, what does 'social utility' refer to?
- Can a defendant acting in an emergency situation be found negligent?
Introduction
Once a duty of care is established, the central question becomes whether the defendant breached that duty. This involves assessing the defendant's conduct against the legally required standard of care. While the objective standard of the 'reasonable person' is the general benchmark, certain circumstances require modification of this standard. This article explores two such areas: the standard applicable to sporting events and the assessment of breach when the defendant's conduct has potential benefits or social utility.
Standard of Care in Sporting Activities
Participants in sports engage in activities that often carry unavoidable risks of injury. The law recognises that applying the standard of the ordinary reasonable person undertaking everyday activities would be inappropriate in this context.
The Reasonable Competitor Standard
The standard of care expected from a participant in a sporting event is typically that of a reasonable competitor in that specific sport, possessing a comparable level of skill and playing according to the rules and conventions of the game. This means that actions which might be negligent outside the sporting context (e.g., forceful physical contact) may not constitute a breach within it.
In Wooldridge v Sumner [1963] 2 QB 43, it was suggested that liability would only arise for conduct showing a 'reckless disregard' for the safety of others. However, later cases, such as Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866, have refined this, indicating that a failure to exercise the degree of care appropriate in the circumstances can constitute a breach, even if not reckless. The level of care expected will depend on factors like the nature of the sport and the level of competition (amateur vs. professional).
Consent and Assumption of Risk
Participants in sports are generally considered to have consented to the ordinary risks associated with playing the game, provided the other participants act within the rules. This relates to the defence of volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk).
Key Term: Volenti non fit injuria A defence asserting that the claimant freely accepted the risk of harm, thereby absolving the defendant from liability. Often relevant in sporting contexts regarding associated risks.
However, this implied consent does not extend to injuries caused by conduct that falls well outside the rules or demonstrates a deliberate or reckless disregard for safety.
Worked Example 1.1
Liam is playing in a Sunday league football match. During a challenge for the ball, Mark tackles Liam firmly but fairly, according to the rules of football. Liam falls awkwardly and sustains a broken ankle. Is Mark likely to be in breach of his duty of care?
Answer: Mark is unlikely to be in breach of duty. Football involves physical contact and the risk of injury from tackles made within the rules. As Mark's tackle was fair, he likely met the standard of care expected of a reasonable competitor in that context. Liam implicitly consented to the risk of such an injury occurring during normal play.
Worked Example 1.2
In a professional boxing match, Boxer A, frustrated after a round ends, punches Boxer B after the bell has sounded, breaking Boxer B's jaw. Is Boxer A likely to be in breach of duty?
Answer: Boxer A is likely to be in breach of duty. While boxers consent to forceful punches during the rounds, this consent does not extend to intentional blows delivered after the bell, outside the rules of the sport. This action demonstrates a disregard for the rules and Boxer B's safety, falling below the expected standard.
Balancing Risk and Potential Benefits
When assessing whether a defendant's conduct amounts to a breach of duty, courts undertake a balancing exercise. They weigh the magnitude of the risk (likelihood of harm occurring and severity of potential harm) against the practicality and cost of taking precautions. A key factor in this balance is the social utility or potential benefit of the defendant's conduct.
Social Utility of Conduct
If the defendant's conduct serves a socially valuable purpose, the courts may deem it reasonable to take greater risks than would normally be acceptable.
Key Term: Breach of Duty A failure to meet the standard of care required by law in the circumstances, judged against the benchmark of the 'reasonable person' or a relevant modified standard (e.g., reasonable competitor, professional).
The classic illustration involves emergency situations. In Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 1 WLR 835, firefighters needed to transport heavy lifting equipment urgently to rescue someone trapped under a vehicle. The usual transport vehicle was unavailable, so the equipment was placed unsecured on another lorry. It shifted during the journey, injuring a firefighter. The court held there was no breach of duty. The social utility of saving a life justified the risk involved in using the available, albeit unsuitable, transport in the emergency.
Revision Tip
Remember that the principle in Watt is not a licence for negligence in emergencies. The risk taken must be balanced against the end to be achieved. Unnecessary risks, even in an emergency, can still constitute a breach.
Statutory Considerations
The common law principle of considering social utility is reflected in legislation.
- Compensation Act 2006, s 1: Allows a court determining the standard of care in negligence (or breach of statutory duty) to consider whether imposing a requirement to take specific steps might prevent a desirable activity from occurring or discourage participation in it.
- Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 (SARAH Act): Requires a court considering negligence (or breach of statutory duty) to have regard to whether the alleged breach occurred when the person was acting for the benefit of society or heroically intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger.
These Acts aim to reassure people engaging in socially valuable activities (e.g., volunteering, rescue attempts) that courts will consider the context of their actions. However, they largely codify the existing common law approach rather than creating broad immunities.
Exam Warning
Do not assume social utility automatically negates a breach. The court still balances factors. If reasonable precautions could have been taken without significantly undermining the social benefit, a failure to do so may still be negligent. For example, in The Scout Association v Barnes [2010] EWCA Civ 1476, playing a game in the dark was deemed to add risk without sufficient justification, even though scouting itself has social value.
Worked Example 1.3
An ambulance driver, responding to a 999 call for a suspected heart attack, drives significantly above the speed limit through a residential area at night, without activating the ambulance's siren or flashing lights. They collide with a car pulling out of a side road, injuring the car's driver. Is the ambulance driver likely to be in breach of duty?
Answer: The ambulance driver is likely to be in breach of duty. While responding to an emergency has high social utility (Watt), justifying some increased risk (like exceeding the speed limit), the driver must still exercise reasonable care appropriate to the circumstances. Failing to use the siren or lights significantly increases the risk to other road users without being essential to reaching the patient quickly. This failure likely falls below the standard of a reasonably competent ambulance driver in an emergency.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- In sporting activities, the standard of care is generally that of a reasonable competitor at that level, playing within the rules.
- Participants implicitly consent to the ordinary risks of a sport (volenti non fit injuria), but not to actions demonstrating reckless disregard for safety or rule breaches.
- Assessing breach involves balancing risk against the practicability of precautions and the social utility of the defendant's conduct.
- Conduct with high social utility, such as emergency responses, may justify taking greater risks than otherwise acceptable (Watt v Hertfordshire County Council).
- Statutory provisions (Compensation Act 2006, SARAH Act 2015) mandate consideration of the potential impact of liability on desirable or heroic activities.
- Social utility does not provide immunity if reasonable precautions were neglected without good reason.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Volenti non fit injuria
- Breach of Duty
