Sports Law. Inside the Stadium.

Francis v Cockrell (1870) LR 5 QB 501

A temporary stand at a race track collapsed injuring
spectators;
The stand was built by independent contractors, who
constructed it negligently;
Spectators had a contract with the race holder, which included
an implied term that the stand would be safe (excluded
unforeseen or unknown defects)
As the contractor built it negligently, the defect was not
unforeseen and so the court held the race holder liable.
Brown v Lewis (1896) 12 TLR 455
The grandstand at Ewood Park (Blackburn Rovers) collapsed;
Directors of the club were held personally liable for failing to
engage a competent contractor.
[The case largely led to sports clubs incorporating]

Occupiers Liability Act 1957:

s 1 codifies and replaces common law rules;
2. Extent of occupier's ordinary duty
(1) An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the common duty of
care, to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend,
restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement
or otherwise.
(2) The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the
circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be
reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is
invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.

Words in read subject to prohibition in excluding personal injury under s

2(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Hall v Holker Estate.

Claimant playing football with his son and sons friend at a camp
site;
Foot caught in goal net and goal post collapsed on him causing
injury to mouth and jaw.
Defendant aware that the pegs holding the goal post down were
sometimes removed and so the goal posts were not as safe as they
should have been.
Court of Appeal held that where a person encourages an activity on
their land they must make the playing area reasonably safe and
ensure it is properly maintained.
Common duty of care breached.
 If you provide sporting facilities must make them safe.

Sutton v Syston
- Shared ground cricket rugby
- Wooden peg left of pitch
- Missed wooden peg in inspection
- Done everything reasonable
- Walking inspection was sufficient to deem no liability.

Tysall v Snowdome
- Claimant injured while tobogganing at indoor snow centre, she fell
off the toboggan on her way down and was hit by members of her
group who followed her down.
- The court held that some activities are inherently dangerous and the
danger is part of the activity.
- So a balancing test: the nature of the activity vs the gravity of the
injury suffered.

Grimes v Hawkins [2011] EWHC 2004

Claimant using defendants pool with defendants daughters

permission.
There were no warning signs.
Group were swimming and jumping in after 30 minutes the claimant
dived in the pool where it was too shallow and broken his neck.
Judge held a risk in diving in any pool and the claimant was an
experienced swimmer and knew the risks of diving in a shallow pool.
No liability.

Crowd Safety.

Empire stadium disaster 1923.

- Old Wembley stadium had just been completed.
- 126,000 official capacities 300,000 turned up for the game (all
standing)
- Crush outside the game and so people were let in to stop the crush
outside.
- As inside became crushed spectators starting moving onto the pitch
- Short Report 1924 set up to inquire the disaster names police
officers should be in charge of safety with trained stewards
popular events should require ticket purchases
- Fire safety should be improved
- Implementation left to football authorities
- No legislation and only change the FA cup became advanced ticket
only.
Burnden Park, Bolton 1946

- Crowd surged forward as teams took to the pitch 33 died and 400
crushed in the surged.
- The moelwyn report proposed a licensing scheme for grounds to
ensure safety and maximum numbers

Safety at sports grounds act 1975.

1. Safety certificates for large sports grounds needed it to show that
the grounds were safe.

Valley Parade, Bradford City 1985.

- Fire broke out 20 years of un cleared rubbish.
- 56 deaths injuring hundreds.
- Had been warned about fire risk twice.
- Ground was found liable under Occupiers Liability Act 1957
(Fletcher & Other v Bradford City FC (unreported, 1987).

Birmingham City, St Andrews.

- Fight broke out

- A wall collapsed and Ian was crushed to death as he hides behind
police lines between to sets of fans
- This led to the POPPLEWELL REPORT stadiums should not be
more of combustible materials all stewards and staff should be
trained in fire evacuation ground and spectator safety rests on the
club.

Hillsborough, 1989.

- 96 fans were crushed to death at Sheffield Wednesdays ground

during FA cup.
- Police did not notice the overcrowding or take steps when they did
- An additional 2,000 fans were allowed in despite the overcrowding
- The disaster was blamed on the police.
- FA was criticized for hosting such a big match.
- Sheffield Wednesday had known for five years that the pens should
have bene separated.
- Hillsborough did not have an up to date safety certificate after the
act.
- Led to the Taylor Report Criticized everybody in football saying
none had taken spectator safety seriously better planning by
 police and other authorities all seated accommodation
implemented in in spectators seating order 1994.

Crowd disorder

- Harrington Report 1967 and the Lang Report 1969.

- Report following rise in football related disorder notices the growth
of violent conduct use of weapons.
- Placed greater responsibilities for fans placed on clubs
- Better accommodation for spectators
- Lang Report was more detailed spectators should be prevented
from entering playing areas - Those who commit football offences
should be banned from attending future games.

Popplewell Report.

- Police wider stop and search powers.

- Introduction of banning orders.

Football Offences Act 1991.

2. Throwing of missiles.
3. Indecent or racial chanting
4. Going onto the playing area.

Football Banning orders

- Introduced as exclusion orders in public order act 1986.

- Banning orders held to prevent violent or disorder in a football
match.

- Interferes with Private Life Article 8 ECHR.

- If there is a Convention right to go to football matches its restriction
is more easily justified than would be the case in respect of other
rights. Attendance at matches is done for pleasure. Many matches
are now shown on television and can be watched in company at
public houses. Limited orders of the kind proposed are the most
intrusive because they are designed to prevent the subjects from
attending at the matches of the clubs they support. The ability to
attend matches played between clubs in which they have previously
shown no interest is not a very important human right even if it can
be described in those terms at all. If an order preventing a subject
from going to a match he wants to attend can be justified (as is
conceded) an order which prevents him from attending other
matches can be that much more easily justified. That is the answer
 to the submission made by Miss Collier on behalf of the Respondent
that the definition of regulated football matches is so wide that it
catches many matches at which there is no real risk of any violence
or disorder.
- The fact that you cant watch a team you dont support not really a
human right wont suffice - must be something very person for you
to pass the football banning order courts will be relaxed if its
personal event e.g. wedding.

- Banning order made on a complaint.

- (1) An application for a banning order in respect of any person may
be made by
- (a) the relevant chief officer, or
- (b) the Director of Public Prosecutions,
- if it appears to him that the condition in subsection (2) is met.
-
- (2) That condition is that the respondent has at any time caused or
contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or
elsewhere.
- (3) The application is to be made by complaint to a magistrates'
court.
- (4) If
- (a) it is proved on the application that the condition in subsection (2)
above is met, and
- (b) the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence
or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches,
- the court must make a banning order in respect of the respondent.
- Gough v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2002] EWCA Civ 351
- Never proved involved in football-related disorder;
- Court of Appeal held that this did not matter as the order was
preventative not punitive.
- Civil procedure so not subject to normal criminal rules