QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
CORNISH GLENNROY BLAIR-FORD |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
CRS ADVENTURES LIMITED |
Defendant |
____________________
Stephen Grime QC and Jonathan Bellamy (instructed by Ford and Warren) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th July 2012
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Globe:
Summary
Facts
Risk Assessments
Evidence of Mr and Mrs Sell
"Our commitment to you is that risk is managed and minimised using the following best practice:
"Competitors are required to hurl a Wellington boot as far as possible within boundary lines from a standing start. After the competitor has thrown the welly, a marker is placed at the point of landing. Then the next person in line throws and so on.
Safety: make sure the competitors are a safe distance in front of the remaining player"
Evidence of the instructors Mr and Mrs Armitage
Other evidence
Licensing requirements
The experience of others who have been involved in welly-wanging
Reconstruction evidence
Law
19. ..Lord Reid said this at pages 641-644
" ..it does not follow that, no matter what the circumstances may be, it is justifiable to neglect a risk of such a small magnitude, A reasonable man would only neglect such a risk if he had some valid reason for doing so: e.g., that it would involve considerable expense to eliminate the risk. He would weigh the risk against the difficulty of eliminating it. If the activity which caused the injury to Miss Stone had been an unlawful activity there can be little doubt but that Bolton v. Stone would have been decided differently. In their Lordships' judgment Bolton v. Stone did not alter the general principle that a person must be regarded as negligent if he does not take steps to eliminate a risk which he knows or ought to know is a real risk and not a mere possibility which would never influence the mind of a reasonable man. What that decision did was to recognise and give effect to the qualification that it is justifiable not to take steps to eliminate a real risk if it is small and if the circumstances are such that a reasonable man, careful of the safety of his neighbour, would think it right to neglect it."
20. There are at least two points to note about this important passage. First, Lord Reid uses the expression "a real risk", which was the expression used by the judge in this case. Secondly, one cannot in this context separate the enquiry as to reasonable foreseeability of damage from the related enquiry what is it reasonable to do in the light of the reasonably foreseeable risk. It may be reasonable to take no steps to eliminate a risk which is unlikely to eventuate and which will be of small consequence if it does. The social utility of the activity which gives rise to the risk falls to be considered. Carelessly leaking oil into a harbour is an activity of no value from which it is obvious that anyone should desist if it gives rise to only a very small risk of a disastrous fire (ie "The Wagon Mound (2)"). Playing cricket on the other hand is a socially useful activity players should not be expected to desist unless at the location at which the game takes place it poses a risk the nature and extent of which outweigh the undesirability and/or inconvenience and/or difficulty and/or expense of eliminating the risk by stopping play at that ground and/or finding another more suitable location (ie Bolton v Stone).
Mr Blair-Ford's case.
The defendant's case
Conclusion