Sport may “involve risk of injury, and where there is negligence, there is scope in the sporting arena for those harmed to take legal action” [Schot, 2005]. Negligence is the absence of reasonable care where it should have been exercised. According to English Law, four conditions must exist to claim negligence [Caddell, 2005]:
• Duty or Duty of Care — There is a relationship between the defendant and the complainant, so the defendant owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to the complainant. This duty could involve team officials and spectators. The critical issue is that the defendant must ensure all efforts are made to protect claimants. For instance, it may be considered a violation of FIFA’s duty of care and or the host country, when LGBTQIA+ fans at the FIFA World Cup in Qatar were subjected to unpleasant behaviour. Having identifiable disclaimers in car parks ensures that spectators understand that they are parking at their own risk.
• Breach of Duty — The defendant’s action falls below the applicable standard of care for a given situation. For example, if the World Boxing Association requires the presence of medical doctors before all its events can begin, then such a requirement is a standard of care. A vehicle tampered with at a stadium where disclaimer signs are visible at all points of entry does not represent an automatic breach of duty by the organiser or the stadium management.
• Proximate Cause — Evidence must show that the organiser’s negligent conduct resulted in injury or damage. For example, the organisers accommodated 10,000 spectators above the stadium’s seating capacity. A stand collapsed, injuring spectators. If the evidence supports the claim that the stand collapsed due to over-seating, then negligence was the proximate cause of the spectators’ injuries.
• Damages — The complainant must suffer damages. The complainant must prove that their damages are directly related to the breach of duty of care. If not, then the fourth negligence condition would not have been met. For instance, if an athlete suffers an injury in an external environment to their training programme/venue or in actual bona fide play with their team, then claims for damage will not be automatic if the athlete aggravates the injury in training or actual play especially if they did not apprise their team officials of their injury.
The UK Court of Appeal acknowledged that duty of care following two separate cases brought by rugby players who had suffered severe spinal trauma because of the referee’s failure to exert adequate control over a highly technical area of the game. In the case of Smoldon v Whitworth 1997, the claimant, Benjamin Smoldon, sued rugby referee Michael Nolan for “the referee’s failure to apply and enforce the rules of engagement at the scrummage led to an unacceptably high number of collapses of the type that eventually led to his debilitating injuries,” [Caddell 2005: 418]. Nolan conceded that he owed a duty of care to all participants.
In Vowles v Evans, the defendant referee Evans, unlike Nolan, disputed care of duty towards the players. The Court of Appeal upheld liability and “categorically rejected the arguments of the defendants [sic]” [Caddell 2005: 422]. According to Lord Phillips MR, a “match official owes a duty of care to the players, irrespective of whether the match is played by adults or minors, amateurs or professionals” [Caddell 2005:422].
Organisers must understand negligence and how it can manifest itself in sporting events. They must do everything possible to ensure all measures are in place to protect all stakeholders. Additionally, officials, athletes, and spectators must understand the limits of their actions and the possible consequences of violations. Through its seminars and workshops, the Faculty of Law, UWI, St Augustine, will significantly impact sporting stakeholders in their legal responsibilities when organising sporting events to protect themselves and their clients.