Basic HTML Version
The evidence indicated that a track start dive carried
more risk than a “grab start” or one where the
swimmer’s feet were placed at or partly over the edge
of a pool and a professional swimming coach was
obliged to take account of the additional risks and not
simply follow the FINA standard (which permitted diving
into water at least 1 metre deep), particularly in view of
the magnitude of the potential consequences.
Mr Critoph should have been
aware of the risks of the track
start dive and the disadvantages
caused by an absence of coping
tiles at the pool edge.
Accordingly, the Court found the
school was negligent, resulting in
the Plaintiff’s injury.
The school’s liability arose from
Mr Critoph’s failure to warn the
Plaintiff of the risks associated
with the track start dive. The
Court held that a reasonable person in
Mr
Critoph’s
position would have given a warning of the risks to the
Plaintiff. Mr Critoph should also have instructed the
Plaintiff in how to minimise the dangers associated with
the track start dive such as training in aborting a dive
that had gone wrong and “belly flopping” into a pool.
NEGLIGENCE OF THE COUNCIL
The Court found no basis for concluding that the
Council should have precluded all dives into the shallow
end of the Lithgow Pool or was negligent in failing to
adopt this measure.
The Court found the Council’s position could be
distinguished from that of the school and Mr Critoph
and found no basis for the Council being aware of the
dangers associated with track start dives prior to the
Plaintiff’s accident.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION
The decision is relevant to sports coaches and their
employers (such as clubs and educational institutions,
who would be vicariously liable for their negligence)
and the operators of facilities at which athletes train.
LESSONS FOR COACHES,
CLUBS AND EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS
In the case of coaches whose charges, particularly of
junior athletes, are undertaking training away from the
coach’s direct supervision, the decision illustrates the
importance of the coach taking reasonable steps (such
as an inspection) to satisfy themselves that the facilities
(eg swimming pools, gymnasiums, sports fields) are
appropriate for the training programme they have
devised and do not unreasonably expose the athlete
to a risk of injury. Potential hazards may include
gymnasiums with poorly maintained equipment, sports
fields with irregularities in their surface or facilities
with inadequate protective
equipment such as padded mats
at gymnastics training facilities.
In situations where athletes,
particularly those of school age,
are training at facilities outside
the control of their school or club,
where reasonably practicable,
the school or club should have
procedures to inspect the
proposed facilities and document
the inspection process. In the
event of a liability claim arising
from an injury at the facility, the
record of inspection may be a critical piece of evidence
addressing the issue of whether the school or club took
reasonable measures to satisfy itself that the facility
was appropriate for the athlete’s training programme.
SUPERVISION OF ATHLETES’
TRAINING
The need to have a qualified coach present will
ultimately depend upon the nature of the sport and
the training activity. A training session involving laps
of a pool or athletics track is likely to carry a relatively
low risk of injury and consequently, a limited need for
a qualified coach to be present. This can be contrasted
with a training session in which a gymnast is attempting
an unfamiliar and demanding routine. Given the
potential for catastrophic injury in gymnastics, unlike
the conclusion in Miller, the exercise of reasonable care
would likely require a qualified coach to be present
to identify and correct technical flaws that, if left
uncorrected, might lead to significant injury.
Sports clubs and schools do not have limitless resources
and are frequently dependent upon volunteers. Care
needs to be exercised in the selection and management
of volunteer coaches. Resources permitting, volunteer
coaches should be provided with specific guidance as
to potential risks of the sport (rather than assuming
the coaches’ own experience will provide them with
sufficient insight into risk management) and the
provision of such guidance should be documented and
retained.
THE SCHOOL’ S L I AB I L I TY
AROSE FROM MR
CR I TOPH ’ S FA I LURE TO
WARN THE PLA INT I FF OF
THE R I SKS ASSOC I ATED
WI TH THE TRACK START
DI VE .
18
|
TOUCHLINE
ISSUE 21 | AUGUST 2015