This article analyzes the significant English case of Barnes v Scout Association [2010] EWCA Civ 1476, which focuses on the duty of care in negligence, particularly in volunteer-run organizations, providing essential insights for law students.

  • In the case of Barnes v Scout Association [2010] EWCA Civ 1476, the question of whether the degree of risk entailed by an activity is unacceptably high when one party owes a duty of care to the other must be balanced against the social benefit that such an activity brings and decided on a case by case basis.

Facts of the Case Barnes v Scout Association

  • C was a member of the boy scouts, a group maintained by D.
  • During one meeting, a game was organised by an agent of D, which required participants to run across an enclosed room at high speeds.
  • The room was poorly lit as the participants ran, as the room’s main lights were switched off.
  • C fell and collided with a bench whilst playing this game, in an attempt to slow down before hitting a wall he had not seen in time. Through this, he injured his head and shoulder.
  • The county court judge ruled that the darkness of the room added a significant and unacceptable degree of risk that would not have been present had the main lights been switched on.
  • Such a degree of risk was held to amount to a breach of a duty to take reasonable care owed by D to C and so D was held liable for negligence.
  • D appealed on the grounds that the risk of collision and subsequent injury existed within the game even with the main lights on, and so if this form of the game was regarded as having an acceptable level of risk, the same should be said of the low-light version.
  • D also contended that the judge had failed to properly take the social benefits of the activity into account.

Issues in Barnes v Scout Association [2010] EWCA CIV 1476

  • Did playing a potentially risky game in the dark significantly elevate the risks of injury to an unacceptable level?
  • To what extent should the social benefit of an activity impact the level of risk deemed acceptable when one party owes a duty of care to the other?

Held by Court of Appeal

  • Appeal dismissed.

Smith LJ

  • Agreed with Lord Justice Jackson’s reasoning as to the causation of the injury.

“That cannot mean that any scouting activity… is acceptable just because scouting is a very good thing. The social value of the particular activity must be taken into account...” para 46

  • The game itself had some social benefits for the children, allowing them to exercise and interact with one another, as well as increasing their enjoyment of the overall scout club experience, which had its own educational and health benefits in itself.
  • However, the darkness of the room merely added an element of excitement to the game, rather than any tangible benefit to the children. There were neither social nor educational benefits.
  • In this way, the increased risk of injury it directly led to is unjustified.

Jackson LJ (Dissenting)

“It is plainly correct that the lack of illumination increased the risks of the game on the night in question and that this was a material factor in the occurrence of the claimant’s accident.” para 26

  • C would have likely become aware of the wall earlier, had the main lights been switched on. Consequently, he would not necessarily have suffered the same injury by the same cause, had D’s agent not decided to reduce the light levels of the room. Therefore, playing the game in the dark specifically did significantly increase the risk of injury to C.

 “It is not the function of the law of tort to eliminate every iota of risk or to stamp out socially desirable activities.” para 34

  • Many recreational activities necessitate a degree of risk which is deemed acceptable, as such activities create a social benefit. The boy scouts group creates obvious social benefits, through healthy recreational activities, sports and training opportunities for young people.
  • These benefits are not outweighed by the potential for risk of injury during the game in this case, as the game had far more supervision and structure than any typical game. Children often come up with themselves to play in the dark. Such a risk created by a game in the dark should be taken as a normal part of an exciting range of activities by the boy scout group.

Significance of Barnes v Scout Association on the Development of the Law

The case of Barnes v Scout Association marks a critical point in the jurisprudence regarding negligence and the duty of care in contexts involving voluntary organizations and their responsibilities. Its significance can be understood by examining its relationship and influence concerning preceding and subsequent cases:

  1. Building on Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605: Caparo established a three-fold test for imposing a duty of care, which includes foreseeability of harm, a relationship of proximity, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty. Barnes v Scout Association applied these criteria, emphasizing the need to evaluate the reasonableness of imposing liability on volunteer organizations, where excessive burdens could deter volunteerism.
  2. Clarifying Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923: In Stovin v Wise, the courts were cautious about imposing liability in situations where public authorities failed to act. Barnes highlighted a distinct approach for non-governmental organizations, focusing on the actual actions taken rather than omissions, and assessing whether the measures in place were adequate under the circumstances.
  3. Influence on Subsequent Case Law: Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4: Robinson further explored the “fair, just, and reasonable” criterion in the context of police liability, affirming the principles set out in Barnes about the careful balancing required when considering the duties of organizations involved in public service. This case underscored the necessity of not imposing unduly harsh obligations that could inhibit the functioning of voluntary and public services.

Exam Questions and Answers

Below you will find answers to questions that are most commonly asked based on this case.

What specific training and safety measures did the Scout Association argue were in place at the time of the accident?

The Scout Association contended that it had implemented comprehensive training and safety protocols, which included regular training sessions for volunteers on safety standards and first aid, as well as detailed guidelines on conducting activities safely. These measures are crucial in demonstrating the organization’s commitment to duty of care, aligning with requirements outlined in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which mandates adequate training and safety measures for all organizations.

How did the court assess the “relationship of proximity” between Barnes and the Scout Association in determining duty of care?

The court evaluated the relationship of proximity by considering the direct involvement of Barnes in the Scout Association’s activities and his reliance on the organization to provide a safe environment. This is consistent with principles from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, which dictate that proximity is established when one party reasonably relies on the other to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably cause harm. The court deemed this relationship sufficiently proximate to consider a duty of care.

What are the broader implications of this ruling for other volunteer organizations regarding their operational policies and liability risks?

The ruling in Barnes v Scout Association emphasizes the importance for volunteer organizations to implement stringent safety measures and proper training for volunteers to mitigate liability risks. It serves as a precedent, urging organizations to critically assess and enhance their safety protocols to protect both participants and themselves from legal exposures. Cases such as Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police further elaborate on this, showing the necessity of balancing duty of care with operational feasibility in volunteer and public service contexts.

Study Law in the UK

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.