An accident which occurred during a Bear Grylls Survival Race has enabled the court to review the extent of the duty of care owed by an occupier of premises to visitors under section 2 of The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 in Harrison v Intuitive Business Consultants Limited and Big Bang Promotions International Limited and Beyond the Ultimate Limited [2021] EWHC 2396 (QB).
The Claimant was one of more than 2,000 participants in an obstacle race in October 2016. One of the obstacles, “The Jungle”, was designed to test grip and upper body strength: contestants would launch themselves from the start platform of a scaffold structure onto monkey rings, suspended by ropes from the top of the structure, and swing themselves across to the end platform. The Jungle was erected on grassland and the ground below the structure was cushioned by loose hay.
The claimant fell to the ground and suffered serious injuries. She claimed damages and consequential loss alleging that the defendants were in breach of their obligations under the Act by failing to follow their own risk assessment and instructing participants to start from a sitting position. The court was satisfied that the defendants’ duty of care under the Act required them to undertake a risk assessment in respect of the activity, to give instruction as to the appropriate method to be adopted when setting off from the platform on to the monkey rings and to provide a reasonably safe landing surface.
The defendants’ obligation was to take reasonable steps for the safety of participants: they were not required to put in place every possible safety measure. The defendants had undertaken a risk assessment which recommended beginning from a seated position to lessen the load on the upper body. However, it was not obligatory to do so and the court heard evidence that starting from such a position would carry risks as it would not achieve sufficient momentum to swing from one ring to another. The court decided that the marshals were not required to give instructions to each individual participant – this was not reasonably practicable given the numbers involved – nor were they required to ensure that the advice was followed. The obligation was discharged by the marshals giving instructions generally to those standing on the platform waiting to set off on the rings.
The court found that general instructions were provided to participants to start The Jungle from a seated position and that marshals were vigilant in redistributing the hay on the ground underneath the obstacle whenever it had started to separate so that a reasonable landing surface was provided. However, even if no instruction had been given it would not have been causative of the claimant’s accident since the court found that the claimant had successfully grabbed hold of the first ring and was in the process of taking hold of the second ring when she fell to the ground. Consequently, whether she started from a standing or sitting position on the platform was irrelevant.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
