Substantive Law of Tort

PART A

Under what area(s) of tort law was the action brought by Poppleton?

A: The action was brought under the area of Negligence of tort law. As both the defendant and the plaintiff were in a relationship with one another and it is the responsibility of the defendant to take any care that might be needed or required to look after the plaintiff.

Identify at least 2 of the specific allegations:

A: One particular allegation is the Breach of the Occupier's Liability Act 1957 and the second is failure to monitor or assess the ability of Claimant, provide him with training as well as a thorough explanation of the safety rules.

Identify the various courts in which the case was heard.

A: The case was heard initially in the Winchester County court. Later there was an appeal was looked after by the Supreme Court of Judicature Court if Appeal of the Civil Division.

What view did the Claimant take of the design of the facility and the safety matting? A: The Claimant was of the opinion that there was a failure in carrying out the risk assessment by the defendant which is required by the 1999 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations

The Trial Judge made a finding that the Claimant was not asked to sign a disclaimer form which would have warned him about the potential dangers. Would this have made any difference?

A: Yes this would have been an important point. If the claimant had been asked to sign a disclaimer form, warning him of the potential dangers associated with 'bouldering', it would have served two chief purposes

It would have made the claimant aware of the risks and potential injuries that are associated with bouldering.

It would have made the defendant completely free from any accident or injury that might have resulted from the clients actions when using the facilities.

In the current case, it would have discouraged Mr. Poppleton from jumping from the wall under the belief that the safety matting would break his fall completely.

With regard to the Court of First Instance:-

Summarize, in your own words, the findings of the Court regarding the duty of care that the Defendant owed the Claimant.

A: The duty of care was owed to the Claimant because the defenders had opened a facility which promoted a specific kind of dangerous activity. Aside from complying with the Safety Regulation Standards, they were duty bound to inform the people of the potential dangers of the facility in this case, the matting not being a perfectly safe landing spot in the event of odd falls. Since the presence of a 'safety' matt to break the falls of the enthusiasts, might induce reckless behavior as is the current case because of people's belief in the absolute effectiveness of the safety matt.

In relation to the Trial, what defenses did the Defendants rely upon?

A: The Defendants relied upon their safety matting, the list of rules and regulations pinned outside the room and the movie How to Get a ...