Sports injuries

This Overview provides a summary of the potential defendants who can be pursued, the issues that frequently arise in sports and leisure accident claims and the possible defences.

Basic principles

The basic principles for pursuing a personal injury claim apply equally to sports and leisure accident claims. The defendant must:

  1. owe the claimant a duty of care

  2. the defendant must be in breach of that duty, and

  3. the claimant must suffer damage which is causally connected with the breach

When dealing with a sports injury claim, it is important to recognise that participants in sport accept, to some degree, an element of risk by participating in the sport. The risk they accept depends on the sport involved and in particular whether it is a low risk non-contact sport (such as running) or a high risk contact sport (such as boxing).

For further guidance, see Practice Notes: Assumption of risk in sports and leisure claims and Sports personal injury claims.

Different types of sports and leisure accidents

Claims can arise in a variety of contexts, for example:

  1. diving accidents

  2. cycling accidents

  3. team building events

  4. climbing

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Third party costs—Court of Appeal confirms stay pending detailed assessment is case management decision (Federal Republic of Nigeria v VR Global Partners LP)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a judge at first instance to stay an application for a third-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 until after the conclusion of the detailed assessment of the underlying bill of costs. Dismissing Nigeria’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that there is no presumption that a third-party costs application should be determined before a detailed assessment. The question is purely one of case management, to be decided in accordance with the interests of justice and the overriding objective. The decision, being within the scope of discretion allowed a judge, was not amenable to appeal; that a different judge would have reached a different conclusion was not in point. Where there is a real question whether any further sum will be payable following assessment (particularly where a substantial payment on account has already been made and costs are to be assessed on the standard basis), it is legitimate to stay the third party application to avoid wasting court resources on what may prove to be a pointless satellite exercise. Of general and at least equal significance to costs practitioners were the Court of Appeal’s strong comments (obiter dicta in strict terms) deprecating disproportionate detailed assessment processes and endorsing the use of sampling as a case management tool in cases involving very significant bills of legal costs. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents