In Poppleton v Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee, the Court of Appeal held that these adults who choose to engage in activities which clearly give rise to some unavoidable risk may find that they ‘have no means of recompense if the risk materialises so that they are injured.’ This firm stance contradicts to some extent previous case law which appeared to create a compensation culture for those involved in activities, in particular sporting activities, where the claimant had voluntarily participated in a risk fraught activity with tragic results. In the Poppleton case, the claimant had wound up tetraplegic as a result of his participation in bouldering – a particular type of indoor climbing without the use of safety ropes. He had attempted to emulate the manoeuvre of one of his more experienced colleagues and fell, sustaining serious injuries. He argued that the activity centre had been negligent in that it had failed to supervise him properly and/or warn him of the risks of the activity. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the centre could be held to have a duty to supervise or instruct persons who do not want instruction. The claimant in this case had effectively self-certified himself as competent to use the facilities without help and had signed a disclaimer form. The effect of this form was that the respondents had not assumed any responsibility. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal could not establish that a duty of care existed. It follows from this that if a facility is provided as an unsupervised centre, then no duty of care will arise for the centre to verify the competence of participants or provide them with instructions unless a participant specifically requests that this be given. It should be noted that the claimant in this case was an adult of full capacity who had made a free and informed decision to carry out this particular activity.
The Court found that where a risk is obvious and inherent in an activity, the defendants are not under any duty to warn participants about it. This was the case in the Poppleton judgement, where the risks involved in bouldering were obvious from the outset. If, on the other hand, there are hidden risks to an activity, or the premises themselves are dangerous, a duty to warn will exist. This was not the case at the climbing centre under consideration.
The conclusion that the Court of Appeal came to was that it was irrelevant whether or not the claimant had signed in at reception himself and whether he had been aware of the climbing rule walls displayed outside the bouldering room. What was relevant was that the claimant had volunteered himself to participate in an inherently dangerous activity and the defendants were not therefore under a duty to prevent, train or supervise him whilst he was participating. Essentially, the effect of this judgment is that individuals are free to consent to particularly catastrophic personal injuries and death within the context of their sport. This may be contrasted with the law in relation to team sports, whereby participants cannot consent to deliberate acts or take risks that are intended to cause serious harm to others.