“Important. All freestanding goals must be anchored”
“A range of anchors for use with portable, freestanding and five-a-side goal posts … provide extra safety during unsupervised play by reducing the risk of misused goals toppling over.”
“1. Equipment specific risk assessment to be carried out and the maker’s safety information to be incorporated in to the preventive and protective measures … 6. Performance of the play area to be monitored from time to time by staff to ensure it can be used safely. 7. Norwich Union – daily inspections of play area.”
“[the pegging of the goal frames] ... is probably not a matter which Thomas really ever applied his mind to whilst he was playing football on this pitch from time to time; but the inference (and it seems to me it is a strong inference) to be drawn from his activity playing football on this pitch over a number of years very frequently, is because he has not observed the nets or the goals being displaced, that it probably did not occur. Yet, if they were being used, particularly by a large number of people, one would expect, it seems to me, if these goals were not pegged down in some way, not made stable in some way, that there would be some evidence not necessarily of accidents but of the goals having toppled over and having to be set up again which, would be a nuisance if one were playing football. There is no evidence of such incidents historically, certainly none known to the claimant and none revealed by the defendant, although it has revealed little. That suggests to me, strongly, that what occurred on this occasion should be regarded as a most unusual state of affairs. ”
“The defendant … asserts through Mr Blythe on the basis of what he was told rather than through any witness that [the Defendant] has called from it own staff – that daily inspections were being made. Mr Blythe appears to have been persuaded by the evidence that there really were worthwhile daily checks. But, if one examines the evidence that he had for it, it seems to me to be exceptionally thin and what it amounts to is that there may have been casual checks by people who were doing other things – whether by simply walking along a nearby road … or when they were crossing the field, when they were mowing around the goal, whether with a tractor or with a strimmer. I do not know how often the grass was mown – in summer, no doubt, it was mown more often than in the autumn and in the spring – so that does not really help. But the evidence that this goal was checked for safety on a daily basis I find unconvincing. It may have convinced Mr Blythe but I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that this goal was checked on a daily basis.”
“How often should it be checked? Clearly, Mr Blythe, with his responsibilities as Environmental Health Officer, took the view that a weekly check was inadequate; but he was satisfied on the basis of his investigation, that there was a daily check of some sort; and that did satisfy him, hence his conclusion. I do not apply the same test that he does. In fact, it is not entirely clear what test he was applying.”
“When the goalposts are securely fixed with the net pegs this does not happen. I believe that people take the pegs out for tent awnings?”
“I return to the point that, as it seems to me, stands out from the evidence in this case very strongly and that is that this should be regarded as a disastrous but nonetheless isolated incident. There is nothing to suggest, on any previous occasion, either on that day or previous days during the stay or in the fortnight before, that Thomas or his friends had ever found that the goals were, from their point of view, not adequately secured. It seems to me that the conclusion to draw from that is that the Defendant should be found to have taken routine steps to see that these goals were safe in use for which they were intended and, to a certain extent, misuse because it seems to me quite likely that such equipment is, on occasions, misused, particularly by unsupervised children. 58. It seems to me, if it gave thought to the question that the defendant would be asking himself what he had to do, in relation to the installation and use of these goals and the maintenance of them, to see that children were reasonably safe in their use. That is why I mention the question of misuse, because it seems to me an occupier of premises in circumstances such as this must have in mind, that although the equipment is provided for use as a football goal, that they may, in fact, be used for other purposes; that they may be swung upon by children who are not playing football and who happen to see them as an interesting piece of equipment; that people might chase round them and crash into them. One only has to consider what children do (of all ages) when they are playing but not playing football. What there is in this case is a complete absence of evidence that, whether for the purpose for which they are intended or misused, that these goals were not routinely sufficiently secured so as to make them safe …(emphasis added) 64. … it seems to me, on the admittedly incomplete evidence which I have, that the proper inference to draw here is that the situation actually pertaining at the time when this accident occurred probably had not existed for very long. Whether it existed for more than 24 hours, of course, I am quite unable to say. It is wholly unlikely that it had persisted for a week on the basis of the single document that I have seen. Whether a daily inspection is required in the circumstances must depend on the degree of interference being suffered by the Defendant. There is no evidence here to suggest that the circumstances were that as soon as the situation was remedied or as soon as these goals were put out at the beginning of the season (if that is what occurred) that the pegging started to disappear either permanently or temporarily. Indeed, as I have said more than once now, it seems to me overwhelmingly likely that for overwhelmingly most of the time these goals were at least adequately secured by the pegs which were provided.”
“65. It seems to me in the circumstances, therefore, that it would be wrong – and I do not do it – to condemn the Defendants as having failed to use reasonable care to see that the Claimant was reasonably safe. It is clear that he was not reasonably safe at the time that this accident occurred. I concentrate on whether reasonable care had been taken. In my judgment, there had been: in the provision of appropriate equipment; the provision of what appears in practice to be appropriate stabilising items and at least some effort made to deal with the question of interference. That is plain from Mr Knight’s reply in the report form. There was a recognition of a problem and there were countermeasures. On this occasion they proved to be insufficient; but for the reasons which I have given, I dismiss the claim.”
“It is for the plaintiff to show that there has occurred an event which is unusual and which, in the absence of explanation is more consistent with fault on the part of the defendants than the absence of fault; and to my mind the learned judge was wholly right in taking that view of the presence of this slippery liquid on the floor of the supermarket in the circumstances of this case; that is that the defendants knew or should have known that it was a not uncommon occurrence; and that if it should happen, and should not be properly attended to, it created a serious risk that customers would fall and injure themselves. When the plaintiff has established that, the defendants can still escape from liability. They could escape from liability if they could show that the accident must have happened, or even on the balance of probability would have been likely to have happened, irrespective of the existence of a proper and adequate system. In relation to the circumstances, to provide for the safety of customers. But if the defendant wished to put forward such a case, it is for them to show that, on the balance of probability, either by evidence or by inference from the evidence that is given or is not given, this accident would have been at least equally likely to have happened despite a proper system designed to give reasonable protection to customers. That, in this case, they wholly failed to do. Really the essence of counsel for the defendant in any possible argument – and he did not shrink from it – was: “never mind whether we had no system at all; still, as the plaintiffs failed to show that the yoghurt was spilt within a few seconds before the accident, she must fail. As I have said, in the circumstances of this case, I do not think that the plaintiff, to succeed, had to prove how long it was since the defendants’ floor had become slippery. ..… As regards the decision of Devlin J in Richards v WF White & Co, to which Lawton LJ and Ormerod LJ have referred, I agree with Lawton LJ that that case has to be looked at in relation to its very special facts. When the learned judge said ‘but to make out a prima facie case of negligence in a case of this sort, there must, I think, be some evidence to show how long the oil had been there’, I am confident that he did not intend to lay down any general principle. It is, to my mind, not a part of the law, as I have said, that in this case the plaintiff has failed merely because she is unable to disprove that the yoghurt fell on the floor within a few seconds of the time that she trod on it.’ ”
“But where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident as such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants that the accident arose from want of care”
“Such burden of proof as there is on defendants … is evidential, not probative. The trial Judge thought that prima facie this accident would not have happened had the defendants taken reasonable care. In my judgment he was justified in taking that view because the probabilities were that the spillage had been on the floor long enough for it to have been cleaned up by a member of the staff.”