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. In particular, it explores:
- how courts calibrate the standard of care to a reasonable competitor, taking account of the sport’s rules, accepted practices and level of competition
- how the position of spectators, referees and officials differs from that of competitors, and when they owe or are owed duties
- how consent to ordinary risks operates alongside negligence principles without providing blanket immunity
- the valuation of social utility (including emergencies) within the broader breach analysis, alongside likelihood and gravity of harm and the practicality of precautions
- the statutory prompts in the Compensation Act 2006 and the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 and their limited effect on liability
- application of these principles to common scenarios, including contact sports, officiating errors, and emergency responses.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, you are required 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, with a focus on the following syllabus points:
- 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
- the distinct duties owed to and by spectators, referees and officials
- the impact of competition level (amateur versus professional) on what counts as reasonable in the circumstances.
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. Two frequent modifications are relevant here:
- the standard applicable to sporting events, recognising the role of rules, competitive pressures and ordinary risks; and
- the assessment of breach when the defendant's conduct has potential benefits or social utility, commonly engaged in emergencies or activities that benefit the public.
These modifications do not replace the negligence framework. They operate within the established breach analysis, which also considers likelihood and seriousness of harm, practicability and cost of precautions, and the defendant’s state of knowledge at the time.
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).
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 analysis focuses on what a reasonably competent participant would do in the heat of competition, adhering to the sport’s rules and customs.
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, if consistent with accepted play.
In Wooldridge v Sumner [1963] 2 QB 43, it was suggested that liability to spectators would only arise for conduct showing a “reckless disregard” for their safety, emphasising the realities of fast-paced competition. Later cases clarify that disregard of safety is not confined to “recklessness”—negligence may suffice where the participant falls below the care reasonably expected in the circumstances. In Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866, the Court of Appeal held that the standard can vary with the level of play: higher competitive standards often demand greater care in complying with safety-oriented rules. The same approach is reflected in Harrison v Vincent [1982] RTR 8, where negligence by a competitor in motor sport was determined by reference to the acceptable practices of that sport.
In assessing breach:
- the sport’s rule-set and officiating guidance inform what is reasonable
- accepted tactics and tempo of play are relevant
- split-second decisions are judged realistically, but “heat of the moment” is not a complete answer where the conduct falls outside what reasonably skilled players would do.
The position of spectators is distinct. In Hall v Brooklands Auto-Racing Club [1933] 1 KB 205, spectators were taken to accept the ordinary risks of viewing high-speed sports. Wooldridge refined this: a competitor who commits no more than an error of judgment will not be liable; but where conduct shows a disregard for safety that reasonable competitors would avoid, liability may follow.
Key Term: Reasonable competitor
The modified benchmark used to assess breach in sports: the care reasonably expected of a participant of similar skill, playing under the sport’s rules and accepted practices at that level.
Referees and officials
Officials are not insulated from negligence principles. They owe a duty to take reasonable care in enforcing rules designed to protect players from foreseeable harm. The courts have recognised liability where failures materially increased the risk of injury:
- In Smoldon v Whitworth and Nolan [1997] PIQR 133, the referee’s failure to control the scrum engagement sequence led to a collapse and serious injury; the referee owed and breached a duty by not adequately enforcing safety rules.
- In Vowles v Evans [2003] 1 WLR 1607, the referee at an amateur rugby match owed a duty to ensure uncontested scrums when appropriate; a failure to do so constituted negligence.
That duty is sensitive to context. Officials are judged by the standard of a reasonably competent official at the relevant level. The fact that a sport involves risk does not negate an official’s duty to enforce rules intended to mitigate those risks.
Level of play and skill
Unlike general driving in Nettleship v Weston (learner drivers judged by competent driver standard), in sport the level of competition can legitimately affect what counts as reasonable in the circumstances. A professional’s pace and complexity may justify certain risks of the sport that would not be reasonable at a lower level; conversely, stricter adherence to safety-oriented rules may be expected in elite settings. Condon v Basi explicitly acknowledged that competitive level informs the standard.
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. Consent also does not protect against negligence by officials where safety rules are not reasonably enforced. For spectators, acceptance of ordinary risks likewise does not cover negligent acts that go beyond those ordinary hazards (e.g., vehicles driven in prohibited areas or equipment deployed unsafely).
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.
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.
Worked Example 1.4
During an amateur rugby match, repeated scrum collapses occur. Despite clear safety guidance, the referee continues to permit contested scrums without resetting or modifying engagement. A prop forward suffers catastrophic neck injury in a collapse. Is the referee likely to be in breach of duty?
Answer:
Likely yes. Consistent with Smoldon and Vowles, a referee owes a duty to enforce safety rules designed to minimise foreseeable risks. Persisting with contested scrums amid repeated collapses materially increases risk. A reasonably competent referee at that level would have taken steps (resetting, sanctions, or moving to uncontested scrums), and failure to do so is likely negligent.
Worked Example 1.5
At a local motocross event, a competitor loses control over a jump and collides with another rider. The jump is part of the standard course and both riders took it at typical speed. The injured rider sues the colliding competitor. Is breach likely?
Answer:
Unlikely, absent reckless or outside-the-norm conduct. Collisions arising from ordinary competitive manoeuvres on designed obstacles are ordinary risks in motocross. The question is whether the competitor’s riding fell below that of a reasonable rider in comparable conditions. On these facts, the incident appears to be an error of judgment within the sport’s ordinary risks.
Worked Example 1.6
A cricket spectator is struck by a ball hit over the boundary. The club has erected typical boundary fencing and positioned spectators at customary distances. Is the club or the batter likely to be liable?
Answer:
Unlikely on these facts. Hall v Brooklands and Bolton v Stone indicate that spectators accept ordinary risks, including occasional stray balls, where reasonable precautions befitting the sport are in place. Absent negligent conduct (e.g., play or ground arrangements that fall below reasonable practice), liability is unlikely.
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.
Key Term: Social utility
The value to society of an activity or conduct, relevant when weighing risks and precautions in the breach analysis. High utility may justify taking some additional, but still reasonable, risks.
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. 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.
The principle extends beyond emergency services. In wartime driving cases such as Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 333, increased risks taken to support essential public functions were tolerated, provided they remained within bounds of reasonableness.
The broader breach equation
Social utility is never assessed in isolation. Courts evaluate:
- likelihood of harm (Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850): if risk is very small, extensive precautions may be unnecessary
- seriousness of potential harm (Paris v Stepney BC [1951] AC 367): serious potential consequences demand greater care
- practicability and cost of precautions (Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643): reasonable steps must be taken, but very costly measures to remove small risks may be disproportionate
- state of knowledge at the time (Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 QB 66): conduct is judged by what was known or reasonably knowable then, not with hindsight.
These factors remain central when social utility is present; utility may tip a finely balanced case, but will not override obvious, practicable safety steps.
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. The ordinary test of breach still applies.
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 1.7
Firefighters transport a rescue ladder on a flatbed truck to reach a child trapped on a cliff path. They secure the ladder with two straps, but not a third strap recommended in manufacturer guidance. During a sudden stop caused by a pedestrian crossing, the ladder shifts, causing minor injury to a crew member. Is breach likely?
Answer:
Unlikely on these facts. The emergency context and high social utility justify some compressed decision-making. The crew took reasonable, though not perfect, precautions (two straps). Where the additional third strap would add marginal safety at the cost of meaningful delay, a court may find the precautions taken were reasonable in the circumstances.
Worked Example 1.8
A volunteer first-aider runs into a busy road to reach a collapsed pedestrian, failing to check for oncoming traffic and causing a collision. The driver sues the volunteer for negligence. Is breach likely?
Answer:
Possibly, despite social utility. SARAH and s 1 Compensation Act support regard for the volunteer’s social action, but the volunteer must still take reasonable care. Darting into traffic without looking presents an obvious, avoidable danger to others. The utility of reaching the casualty does not excuse plainly unsafe manoeuvres where safer alternatives were available.
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.
- Failure by referees or officials to enforce safety rules can be negligent where it materially increases risk (e.g., Smoldon, Vowles).
- Participants and spectators implicitly consent to the ordinary risks of a sport (volenti), but not to actions demonstrating reckless disregard for safety or rule breaches.
- Assessing breach involves balancing risk against the practicability of precautions, the defendant’s state of knowledge, and the social utility of the 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 but do not create immunity.
- Social utility does not provide a defence if reasonable precautions were neglected; a defendant must still act with reasonable care in the circumstances.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Breach of Duty
- Volenti non fit injuria
- Reasonable competitor
- Social utility