Sport Management Liability and Negligence free essay sample

Stevenson. Court (Lord Atkins- Judge for the case) stated that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the customer. As a result of this breach, the courts found, that Mr. S was liable to pay damages to Mrs. D in the duty of care. So how is this relevant to sport? Sport organisers owe a duty of care, to anybody involved in the event, which is employees/ participants and spectators. They must be mindful of that duty, because any breach may result in being sued for damages. 2. Key terms addressed These are the key terms in understanding negligence and liability. It is essential the sport organiser is familiar with them, because he or she has a responsibility to provide a safe environment for example. They must know what their duty of care encompasses and must know what would breach that duty. I am aware that the sport event organiser has a responsibility to the participants/ employees and spectators, but throughout this presentation I will be focusing on a number of cases, where sport event organisers were found liable for negligence towards spectators. We will write a custom essay sample on Sport Management Liability and Negligence or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page 3. The role of a sport event organiser: The sport event organiser duty of care encompasses three areas. 1. The minimisation of risks 2. Putting into place the appropriate safety measures. 3. And as far as possible to prevent an incident, and if one occurs to limit the damage. 4. Relevant legislation underpinning the organisation of sporting events Occupier’s Liability Act (1957)- In law sport event organisers represent the occupier, so they can be bound by the occupiers liability act. To some degree they can limit there liability to spectators by making spectators aware of dangers, e. g. isplaying warning signs, limiting the number of spectators, efficient stewarding. Safety at Sports ground (1975): The Ibrox Stadium Disaster occurred in 1971, during a game between Rangers and Celtic. There was a late goal, so the spectators that were leaving rushed back, and in the insuring crush, the barriers collapsed and 66 supporters died. The act now requires major sporting events to obtain a certificate of safety before event s. Unfair contract terms act (1977): Before this legalisation was put in place organisers were able to get away with murder literally. White v Blackmore (1972) – Mr White, a spectator was killed, at a motor racing event. Organisers were found not liable because of a warning sign at the entrance to the ground, which stated that motorsport is dangerous. The Fire Safety and Safety At Places of Sport Act (1987 🙂 In 1985, 56 spectators died at Bradford city football club, following a fire where trapped spectators were unable to escape through exits that were locked. This case highlighted the importance of carrying out a fire risk assessment before an event. Since then statuary fire risk assessments have ensured that protocols are put in place to protect the safety of spectators at all sporting events. 5. Repercussions suffered for being unable to fulfil a duty of care To establish negligence 4 elements must be satisfied Number One . The standard of care: Waitemata Pony Club failed to meet the standard of care, because they did not ensure a safe enclosure for horses that were not competing. This resulted in Evans being injured by a runaway pony. Number Two. 2. A breach of duty: Schwilm v. Pennsylvania Sports [1952]- A women sitting behind the goal at a ice hockey game. Struck in the head with a puck, that had passed through the barriers. Awarded $2,500 in compensation even though she assumed risks of going to an ice hockey match, she had a right to rely on the barriers to protect her. Number 3: Causation: An example of this was Langham v Connell Point Rovers Soccer Club [2005] A spectator was awarded ? 145,000 after tripping over a loose rope in a car park attending a soccer match. The rope was a similar colour o the dirt in the car and this caused it to be invisible. Number 4: Injury: A case illustrating this element is Klyne v Bellegrade [1978]: Organisers were held liable when a spectator suffered serious injury after being struck by an ice hockey stick, whilst standing in an unprotected aisle alongside the rink. 6. Limiting Liability: There are limits to the imposition of liability on a sport organiser. There are also limits of liability on the sport organiser. So for instance there is a voluntary Assumption of Risk- Limit the liability of organisers where there is an inherent risk. At county cricket grounds organisers take the precautions of informing spectators via the match ticket that there is a possibility that cricket balls may be hit into the crowd (i. e. If a batsman scores a six . ) Secondly there is Contributory Negligence- The organiser would have to show that the spectator was negligent in the actions they took and contributed to their injuries. If this is the case, the defendant will be relieved of some responsibility for damages. (James, 2010). Harris v Bulldogs Rugby League Club [2006] Rugby club was not held liable when a spectator was injured by a fire cracker. This was because they had already fulfilled all of there safety obligations in carrying out safety checks and searches. 7. Importance of risk management: Effective sport event organisation requires organisers to reduce the risks surrounding a sport event as far as possible. This is achieved by detailed risk assessments, and the formulation of a management plan. Risk assessments are based on legislation such as the Occupiers liability act (1957), the Safety at Sport Grounds Act (1975) and the Fire Safety and Safety at Places of Sport Act (1987). The assessment will identify the people involved which are spectators and employees. The likely hood of the risk, severity of the risk will be analysed, the and finally the control measures to put into place, (minimise any risk). The Safety of Sports Grounds Advisory Group: Although no law was enacted, following the Hillsborough Disaster of 1989, the government appointed Lord Chief Justice Taylor to, make recommendations regarding the safety at sporting events. The final section of the his report, recommended advisory groups comprising of sport event organisers, local authorities and emergency services cooperating to ensure the safety of spectators at sporting events. . Conclusion So where does this leave the sport event organiser? To be a successful sport event organiser, an understanding of the law negligence and liability is essential. The disasters of the past have provided some of the legalisation upon which current sport event organisers are able to assess and manage risk. Because of there very nature, accidents will still happen at sporting events but by recog nising the need for careful planning, organisers are now able to reduce the cases of negligence and make sporting events safer for spectators to enjoy.