Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Sports injury

Sports injury

Postby diy » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:19 pm

A friend received a really nasty gash on his leg requiring significant stitches etc as a result of a slip jumping on a wooden box while following the instructions given during a fitness class. This is a plyometric multi discipline training (a well known brand). I think he may have a personal injury claim despite volenti non fit injuria. My reasoning is as follows:

The training brand has a rugged image to differentiate form other brands (think tyres, ropes and chains rather than weights)

- The box supplied for jumping on was a simple chip board cube with hard sharp edges and no rubber grip or padding. This contributed significantly to the extent of the injury. A rounded edge would not have caused such extensive injury.

- the gym did not provide adequate first aid and didn't have a properly stocked first aid box with basic kit or staff with appropriate knowledge to know that hand towels from the loo shouldn't be put on a deep cut with the bone exposed.

i was thinking this would be small claim fast track and wondered if there were any similar decided cases that are worth researching?

I think we have proximity, duty of care, foreseeable risk of injury and no adequate effort to prevent or limit it
Last edited by diy on Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2199
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Sports injury (cross fit)

Postby 3.14 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:39 pm

In case anyone doesn't know what Volenti non fit iniuria means (I didn't);

Volenti non fit iniuria (or injuria) (Latin: "to a willing person, injury is not done") is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict. Volenti only applies to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to (for example) his opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of boxing. Volenti is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk."
Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: Sports injury

Postby diy » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:02 pm

thanks for the addition btw my edit was removing brand names
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2199
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Sports injury

Postby 3.14 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:09 pm

Are both the gym and the company or individual supplying that training liable? They tend to be two separate entities.
Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: Sports injury

Postby diy » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:21 pm

I think this is where it gets tricky.

Instructor will be self employed but under contract to the gym. So a subcontractor. We then have the potential to include the box manufacturer/brand franchise owner who designed the task and kit.

But the gym has a duty to ensure that the classes being run and equipment are safe. I'd have thought a reasonably experienced PT would think. hmmm that wooden box might cause injury compared to other kit which has softer edges.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2199
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Sports injury

Postby atticus » Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:12 pm

diy should see whether he can persuade a specialist personal injury solicitor to take the case on a cfa.

I thunk it unlikely volenti will apply to a case of unsafe equipment.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18037
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Sports injury

Postby shootist » Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:16 pm

This willing assumption of risk has always puzzled me when it comes to boxing and the like. It is accepted that there is a limit to the risk that can be accepted, for instance, in a martial arts contest the competitors would not be allowed to have at it with sharpened swords, scoring to first blood perhaps. So, there are limits. Boxing seems to be OK even if the opponents previously state they are going to try to kill their opponent in the ring, yet bare knuckle contests are prohibited, even if they are properly governed (bare knuckle makes boxers uglier quicker, but generally inflict much less brain damage.).

There was an almighty fuss about the early Ultimate fighting Challenge events. both in the USA and when the promoters tried to get them going in the UK, because there were no rules, but the fights were generally over much quicker and with remarkably little serious injuries. It seems that the actual damage is far less important than any appearance of unpleasantness.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Sports injury

Postby diy » Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:53 am

thanks for the replies.

I did find a few actions in the US against this brand, but most were about the training methods. i.e. pushing through pain and getting organ damage due to exhaustion.

I'll get him to try the CFA route, but was hoping a letter before action might encourage an insurer to settle while the costs where low.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2199
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Sports injury

Postby atticus » Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:02 am

If you were hoping that then that is what you may try if what you want is a low offer.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18037
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Sports injury

Postby diy » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:51 am

I was more meaning that the gym's insurers might be minded to offer a generous settlement to be done with a claim before having additional processing costs.

The more I think about it the more I think its a stupid set up.. Its stands to reason that this might cause an injury when jumped on.

Image

People have been designing fitness steps for years and most of them have a base larger than the top for stability and rounded edges e.g.
Image
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2199
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Next

Return to Personal Injury

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest