Barnes v Scout Association [2010]
Share
Barnes v Scout Association [2010] EWCA Civ 1476 is an English tort law case involving negligence and dangerous activities. The court considered the need to balance the risks associated with an activity against the social benefits it provides. The key principle established by the court is that the level of risk in a potentially dangerous activity must be weighed against the incremental social benefit it brings.
The claimant, a thirteen-year-old boy scout, participated in a game organised by his scout troupe. The game involved running in a hall in the dark, with the objective of taking a block placed in the middle. Players failing to acquire a block were eliminated. The claimant was injured while chasing a block that had been accidentally kicked away by another player. Subsequently, the claimant sued the Scout Association, alleging negligence.
The key issue was whether the Scout Association breached its duty of care to the claimant by organising a game that led to his injury. Establishing negligence requires showing that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in a similar situation. The case specifically considered the impact of the social value of the Association's activities on the standard of care.
The Court of Appeal held the Scout Association liable for negligence. The majority of the court acknowledged the significant social value of the Association's activities, recognising that such activities often involve an inherent level of risk. However, the court emphasised that the level of risk must be acceptable and proportionate to the social value of the activity.
The court concluded that playing the game in darkness did not enhance the social value compared to playing it in the light. The introduction of darkness added an extra element of risk that was not justified by an increase in the social value of the activity. Therefore, the court found that the Association had breached its duty of care by exposing participants to an unjustifiable level of risk.
This case underscores the principle that while activities with social value may involve some level of risk, the risk must be reasonable and proportionate to the benefits gained from the activity. If the level of risk exceeds what is justified by the social value, the entity organising the activity may be held liable for negligence.
The claimant, a thirteen-year-old boy scout, participated in a game organised by his scout troupe. The game involved running in a hall in the dark, with the objective of taking a block placed in the middle. Players failing to acquire a block were eliminated. The claimant was injured while chasing a block that had been accidentally kicked away by another player. Subsequently, the claimant sued the Scout Association, alleging negligence.
The key issue was whether the Scout Association breached its duty of care to the claimant by organising a game that led to his injury. Establishing negligence requires showing that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in a similar situation. The case specifically considered the impact of the social value of the Association's activities on the standard of care.
The Court of Appeal held the Scout Association liable for negligence. The majority of the court acknowledged the significant social value of the Association's activities, recognising that such activities often involve an inherent level of risk. However, the court emphasised that the level of risk must be acceptable and proportionate to the social value of the activity.
The court concluded that playing the game in darkness did not enhance the social value compared to playing it in the light. The introduction of darkness added an extra element of risk that was not justified by an increase in the social value of the activity. Therefore, the court found that the Association had breached its duty of care by exposing participants to an unjustifiable level of risk.
This case underscores the principle that while activities with social value may involve some level of risk, the risk must be reasonable and proportionate to the benefits gained from the activity. If the level of risk exceeds what is justified by the social value, the entity organising the activity may be held liable for negligence.
