|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A 32-year-old Hampshire man who left paralysed following an accident at a Portsmouth leisure centre has been told he will by a Court of Appeal judge that he will not receive a penny in accident compensation.
The ruling marks a successful appeal by the leisure centre in question, who has sought to overturn an earlier court ruling that they were 25% responsible for the incident, and therefore liable for 25% accident compensation.
In upholding the leisure centre's appeal, the court also dismissed a cross appeal by the claimant and his personal injury solicitor, in which they sought to claim a large fraction of personal injury damages.
In giving his ruling Lord Justice May said, "There being inherent and obvious risks in the activity which [the claimant] was voluntarily undertaking, the law did not in my view require the appellants to prevent him from undertaking it, nor to train him or supervise him while he did it, or see that others did so. "If the law required training or supervision in this case, it would equally be required for a multitude of other commonplace leisure activities which nevertheless carry with them a degree of obvious inherent risk - as for instance bathing in the sea. It makes no difference to this analysis that the appellants charged [the claimant] to use the climbing wall, nor that the rules which they displayed could have been more prominent."
In summing up his accident compensation ruling, the judge commented, "The risk of probably severe injury from an awkward fall was obvious and did not sustain a duty in the appellants to warn [the claimant] of it."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
