|
It is widely accepted that in relation to children, young
people and vulnerable individuals in sport organisations have
a duty of care. The purpose of this briefing paper is to clarify
what that duty entails and to provide some guidance as to
what steps can be taken in order to demonstrate that this
duty is being met.
In essence, duty of care means that a sports body needs to
take such measures as are reasonable in the
circumstances to ensure that individuals will be safe to participate
in an activity to which they are invited to or which is permitted
A duty of care may be imposed by common law or statute, by
contract, or by acceptance by an individual. In some cases
the law imposes a duty of care. For example, the duty of care
the police have when they arrest someone.
There is no general duty of care upon members of the public
towards the public at large. If there is a formal relationship,
however, for example between a club and a club member, or
a coach and an athlete, there is a duty of care.
When children, young people and vulnerable individuals are
involved in organised sports activities and are to any extent
under the care and/or control of one or more adults, the adult(s)
have a duty to take reasonable care to ensure their safety
and welfare.
The duty occurs in two ways:
A Legal Duty of Care
A Moral Duty of Care
The Legal Duty of Care has a strict definition.
The most obvious example of this is in Health and Safety procedures
where clear guidance is provided about what reasonable steps
should be taken to minimise the hazards related to activities,
substances or situations.
In many sports activities, given the health and safety considerations,
it is recognised that a sports organisation or individual
(e.g. coach) owes a duty of care to its members. However,
it is also understood and recognised that accidents can and
do happen, and that it is not possible to predict every eventuality.
Liability for the legal duty of care would only arise when
an incident occurs and it can be demonstrated that the risk
was foreseeable but no action had been taken to remedy it.
In any subsequent legal action the courts would apply the
following criteria to determining if an organisation or individual
would be held responsible:
- Reasonable forseeability of injury
- Proximity
- It is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
The claimant would have to show:
- That they were owed a duty of care
- That the defendant breached this duty
- That the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the
breach
It is recognised that there is a higher duty of care owed
to children, young people and vulnerable individuals and this
is something that those working with these groups must reflect.
An example of this is the Occupier's Liability Act 1957. This
requires that an occupier must be prepared for children to
be less careful than adults would be in a similar situation.
This consideration should be even greater if a child is known
to have learning difficulties or is known to have a medical
condition which may make them more vulnerable than the average
child to foreseeable risk of harm.
Reviewed Jan 08
|
