Basic HTML Version
Sky’s the limit…
AGS Forsikring
+47 67 24 74 02 www.agsforsikring.no
AGS
F O R S I K R I N G
We believe it is our passion
for sport and our focus on
providing excellent customer
service that has made several
Norwegian sports federations
choose
AGS
and
Sportscover
as
partners on specialised insurance
coverage for their members.
For the scandinavian market
contact our insurance team in Oslo
Football League required clubs to complete a match day checklist
prior to the start of the first match of the day. The checklist was
to be signed by a representative of each competing club. The
facility inspection sheet included questions as to whether the
oval’s surface was fit for its purpose and whether water tap holes
were covered.
Although members of the Latrobe club conducted the inspections
required by the Council and the Football League, the Court found
these inspections were not sufficiently rigorous to reveal whether
the cover was level with the surrounding soil.
The East Devonport club (the opposing team) was also found
liable as it had not inspected the ground, despite the League’s
requirement that representatives of both teams check the pitch.
The judge held that a reasonable club would have conducted the
inspection required under the match day checklist and would have
detected the height difference that caused the injury.
The Court also found that the local authority had breached its
duty of care by failing to adopt the procedure it had implemented
at other grounds under its control. This procedure involved
removing the irrigation tap covers during the football season (as
they were not used during the season), filling in the hole with soil,
levelling it sowing grass upon it.
Training for coaches and officials
The Queensland Court of Appeal decision in
Lanyon v Noosa’s
District Junior Rugby League Football Club
illustrates how a
system of inspections, combined with training for officials and
coaches can provide protection against liability for injuries arising
due to an uneven playing surface. In that case, the plaintiff had
been coaching a junior rugby league team when he stepped into a
depression and injured his left ankle. Club officials had inspected
the ground two days before the accident to check that it was in
a fit state for that night’s training and they did not find the hole in
which the plaintiff fell.
The plaintiff had received training in player safety, including
the need to see that the playing area was safe for training by
conducting an inspection of the ground. The plaintiff conceded
that he had not carried out any ‘particular inspection’ of the ground
on the night of the accident.
The Court concluded that the club’s system of requiring coaches
to be accredited through a process which involved instruction in
player safety, including the need to inspect the ground was an
adequate response to the risk of a hole in the playing surface
endangering the users. The fact that the hole escaped attention
[2002] QCA 163.
did not of itself mean that the system in place was not followed or
was deficient.
The Court also noted that it would be unreasonable to expect a
volunteer organisation like the defendant to have the ground free
of all unevenness and to produce a surface of the kind suitable
for lawn bowls or croquet. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the
plaintiff’s claim and concluded that the defendant was entitled to
rely on the requirement that coaches inspect the grounds prior to
and on the day of the accident.
The scoreboard – lessons learned
The following key points emerge from these decisions:
1 The defence of voluntary assumption of risk may protect
against inherent risks but will not assist against a defective
playing surface where the club or ground owner was or should
have been aware of the defect. Clubs and ground owners
will also need to demonstrate that the injured player fully
understood the risk and voluntarily accepted the risk and did
not feel pressured to play to avoid disappointing teammates.
2 Owners and managers of sportsgrounds need to consider
whether the change in sporting seasons and hence sports
played brings about a change in the risks arising from the
use of the ground which requires them to modify the ground,
e.g. by covering irrigation holes (
Williams v Latrobe Football
Club)
.
3 A system of regular inspections by the owner and users of
the ground is only the starting point for management of risks
arising from the ground.
4 Clubs need to ensure that the playing surface is inspected at
regular and short intervals and before every training session
or match.
5 The inspections need to be thorough rather than superficial
(
Williams v Latrobe Football Club
) and documented.
6 Sporting clubs should educate officials and coaches (e.g.
through the accreditation process discussed in
Lanyon
) in
the need to check that playing areas are safe for training
and matches and the conduct of pre-training and pre-match
inspections.
7 When a defect is found, steps must be taken to bring the
surface back to reasonably safe playing condition. This will
always be a subjective test but as long as sensible efforts are
made at the time, the courts are likely to look favourably upon
this.
touchline
19