A 10 year old boy injured in an accident at Kirkstall Abbey during a group outing has had his claim for damages upheld after the defendants appealed against the finding of liability against them. The appeal was dismissed. In a judgment given on 24th May 2018 in the matter of CC (by his litigation friend MC) v Leeds City Council [2018] EWHC 1312 (QB) the Judge confirmed that the claimant was entitled to a compensation award of damages.

The accident happened when the defendants had provided a number of amusements aimed at young visitors. One of these was known as Hangar 51. Children would be equipped with laser guns to fire at each other inside the hangar which comprised a large inflatable structure divided into nine pods. The laser fight had to take place in relative darkness. The interior was not completely dark but was dim enough for it to take a minute or so for the childrens’ eyes to acclimatise to the darkness. The pods were set at different levels which gave rise to a risk of tripping. Shortly after the claimant entered the hangar he fell over one of the tripping points and the gun smashed against his front teeth causing serious injury. The trial judge  found that the defendant had been in breach of its duty to the claimant by failing to warn him of the tripping points before he went into the hangar. In reaching this decision the Court took into account the fact that the defendant had prepared a risk assessment relating to the use of the hangar some four months before the claimant’s accident. One of the foreseeable risks which it identified related to tripping accidents and that participants were to be warned about the ridge in between to pods and the potential to trip over them. This warning was not given. There had already been three similar accidents within the month prior to the claimant’s accident.

The defendants argued at the appeal that the claimant had not proved that a warning would have prevented the accident from happening. This is because the claimant had said that he saw the obstacle but only just. He says he was dimly aware of the hazard but by virtue of the ambient light conditions he was not able to properly assess the degree of danger that the hazard presented. He was unable to evaluate the risk of what he fleetingly saw in the dim conditions. The appeal judge was satisfied that a proper distinction is to be drawn between (i) a dimly perceived and, importantly, inaccurate awareness of some difference in levels in the fabric of the pods and (ii) actual knowledge, strengthened by a warning, that the difference in levels represented a tripping hazard if he were not careful. This was sufficient for the finding of liability to be upheld against the defendants.

The defendants appeal was dismissed and the judge confirmed the claimants entitlement to an award of damages.