Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 353 (QB) (26 February 2013)

Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 353 (QB) (26 February 2013)

The risk of serious injury from headfirst entry into the inflatable pool, as played and supervised, was significant and foreseeable. Both Defendants failed to conduct adequate risk assessments or to take reasonable precautions to prevent such entry, which would probably have avoided the injury. The risk was not justified by the social value of the game. Accordingly, liability is established against both Defendants.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 353
Parties
Claimant: Robert Lee Uren; First Defendant: Corporate Leisure (UK) Limited; Second Defendant: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence / Re Trial on Liability Following Court of Appeal Remittal
Outcome
Liability established against both Defendants; apportionment of liability reserved for later determination.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Risk Assessment, Duty of Care, Causation, Vicarious Liability, Recreational Accidents
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Employer's Liability Negligence Risk Assessment Duty of Care Causation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Lee Uren

Claimant

Corporate Leisure (UK) Limited

First Defendant

Ministry of Defence

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence / Re Trial on Liability Following Court of Appeal Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the degree of risk of serious injury entailed in the game as played on the day of the Claimant's accident?
  2. 2 Was that degree of risk acceptable in light of the social value of the game?
  3. 3 Did the Defendants fail to carry out adequate risk assessments and take reasonable precautions?

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of serious injury from headfirst entry into the inflatable pool, as played and supervised, was significant and foreseeable. Both Defendants failed to conduct adequate risk assessments or to take reasonable precautions to prevent such entry, which would probably have avoided the injury. The risk was not justified by the social value of the game. Accordingly, liability is established against both Defendants.

Court Disposition

Liability established against both Defendants; apportionment of liability reserved for later determination.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant on liability.
  • Quantum and apportionment of liability to be determined at a subsequent hearing.