Harrison v Intuitive Business Consultants Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 2396 (QB) (26 August 2021)

Harrison v Intuitive Business Consultants Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 2396 (QB) (26 August 2021)

The Defendants owed a duty of care to provide instruction as to the appropriate method of starting the Jungle obstacle, as stipulated in their own risk assessment. On the evidence, the marshals did give such instruction, and the Claimant's failure to hear or act on it did not constitute a breach by the Defendants. Even if instruction had not been given, the absence was not causative of the accident, as the Claimant's fall occurred after she had transitioned onto the obstacle. The landing surface was within reasonable safety options and was maintained appropriately. There was no breach of duty and no causative link between any alleged failing and the Claimant's injuries.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2396 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Margot Eraine Harrison; First Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Intuitive Business Consultants Limited (Successor in title to SR UK Ventures Limited t/a 'Bear Grylls Survival Race'); Second Defendant: Big Bang Promotions International Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Beyond the Ultimate Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Breach of Duty, Causation, Risk Assessment, Sports and Leisure Injuries
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Breach of Duty Causation Risk Assessment Sports and Leisure Injuries

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margot Eraine Harrison

Claimant

Intuitive Business Consultants Limited (Successor in title to SR UK Ventures Limited t/a 'Bear Grylls Survival Race')

First Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Big Bang Promotions International Limited

Second Defendant

Beyond the Ultimate Limited

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants breached their duty of care under s.2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 by failing to implement risk assessment control measures for the Jungle obstacle;
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants failed to provide adequate instruction to participants regarding the method of starting the obstacle;
  3. 3 Whether any such failure was causative of the Claimant's injuries;

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants owed a duty of care to provide instruction as to the appropriate method of starting the Jungle obstacle, as stipulated in their own risk assessment. On the evidence, the marshals did give such instruction, and the Claimant's failure to hear or act on it did not constitute a breach by the Defendants. Even if instruction had not been given, the absence was not causative of the accident, as the Claimant's fall occurred after she had transitioned onto the obstacle. The landing surface was within reasonable safety options and was maintained appropriately. There was no breach of duty and no causative link between any alleged failing and the Claimant's injuries.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed