Crowd Safety in Sports Grounds Essay
CROWD SAFETY (STADIUMS) Occupiers Liability Act (1957) is the fundamental act of spectator safety at sporting events - Crowd Safety in Sports Grounds Essay introduction. This act is that an occupier of a premises owes a common duty of care to their visitors. Occupier is in charge of premises. Visitor is some that is invited or permitted to be at the premises. Disabled visitors covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Cunningham v Reading FC 1992- stadium crumbling. Lump of concrete thrown by fans, hit police man on the head. Was foreseeable because of poor stadia. Reading found liable for negligence.
Simms v Leigh RFC- rugby league player tackled but injured when he slid off pitch into concrete wall next to pitch. Club not liable because perimeter was regulated distance. Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975- covers all stadiums and all sports. It protects all spectators. Fire Safety and Safety of place of sport 1987- licenses from local authorities. Defines how many people in a stand. Because of Bradford fire (wooden stands) act made it so that stadia had to be made of fire proof material Football Spectator Act 1989- is about banning orders.
More Essay Examples on
If person commits offence can be banned from sporting events for a certain period of time. Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol) 1985- cannot be possession of alcohol at football matches or on a journey to match. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994- section 60 -Police Powers regarding Public order. 166A Ticket Touting–Ticket touting illegal- cannot sell tickets in public places Football Offences Act 1991-only at football -cannot throw missiles or make racist or indecent chants JAN 28-2010- Craig Bellamy, attacked with bottles and coin. 2 men arrested for attack.
Public order act 1986- cover riots, violent disorder, affray, public disorder. Riots- 12 people involved. 2-11 people is classed as violent disorder. Affray is 1 people. NEGLIGENCE (CONTACT SPORTS) breach of duty of care that results in foreseeable harm to another. Most common way to recover compensation for injuries suffered during course of play. Sport participants owe a duty of care to one another when competing. A breach of duty of care can be proved when; it is shown there is duty of care owed, duty is broken and damage results. A reasonable way of explaining duty of care is case law.
DONOGHUE V STEVENSON 1932- Famous case. Involved Neighbour principle, meaning you must take reasonable care to avoid acts that you can foresee would be likely to cause injury to your neighbour. A neighbour is a person closely or directly affected by you. CONDON V BASI 1985- Amateur football broke his leg. Court ruled there was an obvious breach of duty of care as there was a reckless disregard for the plaintiffs safety, which fell below the standards expected in a game. This case establish that a footballer can sue for injury cause by another player.
CALDWELL V MAGUIRE 2001- Jockey, blocked off caused horse to veer off and resulted in jockey falling and getting injured. NOT LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE AS THIS WAS DEEMED ACCEPTABLE, EVEN THOUGH NOT APPROVED, AMONG THE HORSERACING WORLD. Laid down 5 propositions inc 1. duty of care owed to participants. 2. take care to avoid injury. 3. take into account object, demands, dangers, rules and conventions, customs of sport. 4. lapse of judgement/skill can cause injury. 5. hard to prove reckless disregard. which occurred during a horse race, where Caldwell was unseated from his horse and severely injured due to the actions of Maguire and Fitzgerald.
However the judges dismissed the appeal stating playing culture as a major factor. “The playing culture of a sport is the way that is accepted as being, and expected to be played, by those who are involved with the sport in question. It goes beyond the rules of the sport to include its aims, objectives, skills and tactics and includes some acts of foul play. ” (Gardiner et al. 2005) Jockeys held not liable to a fellow rider, when they crossed in front of him in a race and even though they had been found to be guilty of careless riding at a steward’s enquiry.
The riders’ error could not be characterised as anything more than an error of judgment, an oversight or a lapse of which any participant might be guilty in the context of a race of that kind. It was the sort of incident which happened quite often, therefore it was not possible to characterize momentary careless as negligence and the claimant’s case was dismissed. // SMOLDON V WHITWORTH-1997 Referee liable for negligence. Kept allowing scrums to collapse. One of the forwards was sent off, 7 Vs 8 in scrum. Kept collapsing. Failed to use ‘CTPE’. Collapsed again.
Broke neck leaving him paralysed. Ref owes duty of care to players. He failed to use CTPE, equal players, listening to coaches so was in breach of duty. Awarded ? 1. 8 m but only got ? 1 coz refs earnings were insufficient. RFC compensation was max ? 1million. Since then, RFU have encouraged all players to take private policies and have increased their policy ? 5 million. VOWLES V EVANS 2002- Referee liable for negligence. Allowed contested scrums even without specialised player. Scrum collapse injury occurred, ref owes a duty to players to protect them from injury