Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee v Poppleton [2008] E.W.C.A. Civ 646

D owned an indoor climbing premises where members of the public could experience bouldering; low level simulated rock climbing without ropes. The premises comprised purpose-built artificial climbing walls reaching at maximum 16 feet above the floor. The floor was covered from wall to wall with shock absorbent 12 inch matting. C, a relatively inexperienced climber, went into the premises with a group of friends, two being more experienced climbers. He had climbed a bouldering wall in the premises 3 or 4 times before. C was given no explanation of risks, instruction or questions into his ability as a climber. Rules forbidding jumping were displayed outside the climbing room but C was not referred to them. C attempted to leap from the back wall to a buttress on the opposite wall. C lost his grip and landed on his head on the matting below, leaving him tetraplegic.

Did the climbing operator have to train or supervise an adult participant against the obvious inherent risk of falling during the bouldering activity he voluntarily undertook?

The Court of Appeal allowed the climbing centre's appeal and dismissed Poppleton's cross-appeal. The danger arose from the manoeuvre he chose to attempt, rather than a defect in the climbing room. An adult using the wall could appreciate that losing his grip might cause a serious injury, even with matting beneath him. The centre had therefore not been required to assess his climbing ability, provide instruction or supervise his attempts in these circumstances. The trial judge's additional requirement to warn about the matting could not sustain liability. The decision concerns a voluntary activity with an apparent risk; it does not establish that sports operators are immune from claims involving unsafe premises or responsibilities they have actually undertaken.

An occupier providing suitable premises for an adult recreational activity is not necessarily required to prevent, train or supervise participants against its obvious inherent risks. Poppleton concerned the risk of falling while voluntarily bouldering; it does not excuse defective premises, equipment or a separately assumed instructional responsibility.

Poppleton distinguishes injury arising from an obvious risk of an activity from injury caused by an unsafe condition for which the occupier should answer. The adult claimant attempted a difficult move, and protective matting did not imply that awkward falls could never cause serious injury. Compare Tomlinson and Keown, while identifying whether the operator has undertaken coaching or supplied defective equipment in a different problem. Charging for access did not, by itself, create the supervisory duty asserted here.