Bear Grylls Survival Race Organisers Defeat PI Claim
10/07/2021
Harrison v Intuitive Business Consultants (t/a Bear Grylls Survival Race) [2021] EWHC 2396 (QB)
The entrepreneur, writer, adventurer, and former SAS soldier Bear Grylls OBE is seldom off British TV. He created the Bear Grylls Survival Race to help participants “release the inner Bear” and develop their "wilderness warrior spirit". Every year hundreds of people compete in the event.
In a recent High Court judgment, the organisers of the Bear Grylls Survival Race were found not liable for negligence following a contestant’s fall that left her with a serious leg injury.
Background to the decision
The Claimant, C, a former gymnast, competed in the 5k survival race organised by the first Defendant (D1). The second Defendant, D2, were subcontractors of D1 and were responsible for the design of the course, the management of the race, the provision of staff, and the risk assessment of the obstacles. Contestants had to navigate 20 obstacles while passing through four themed landscape sections of forest, jungle, Arctic, and desert.
C shattered her right leg and dislocated her shoulder just 15 minutes into the challenge when she jumped to reach the monkey rings in the jungle section of the course and fell to the ground below.
Two hazards were identified by D2 when it created a risk assessment concerning the monkey bars:
a) The risk of falling hard when reaching for the rings. This risk could be mitigated if the race participants were told to reach for the rings from a sitting position, and
b) an increased risk of injury when falling from the rings if there had been a movement of the hay covering the landing surface, which could be reduced by marshals redistributing the hay between waves of runners.
C stated that neither of the mitigation measures above had been actioned; therefore, the Defendants were liable for negligence.
The Court’s decision
In dismissing the claim, Judge Freedman stated:
“This was a most unfortunate accident resulting in very serious injuries. It goes without saying that the Claimant is deserving of much sympathy.
‘I am satisfied, however, that her accident and the resultant injuries were not occasioned by any fault on the part of the Defendants.
‘Accidents of this type are an inherent risk of participation in activities such as obstacle races; and no amount of care and vigilance on the part of the organisers and planners of such events can eliminate the possibility of such risks materialising from time to time.”
Judge Freedman said that once it was stipulated in the risk assessment that instructions must be given to all participants to swing out from a seated position, the Defendants had assumed a responsibility to give the instruction. They also owed a duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 section 2 to give that instruction however, they did not have to make adopting a sitting position mandatory. Additionally, the Defendants owed a duty to provide a reasonably safe landing surface under the monkey rings in case one of the participants fell.
Regarding the giving of the instruction to swing out from a seated position, on the balance of probabilities, it was concluded that the Defendants had instructed the group as they were waiting on the platform to use the rings. There was no duty to provide the instruction to each participant individually.
As far as the distribution of hay underneath the monkey rings was concerned, the fact none of C’s witnesses had seen it being redistributed did not mean the task had not been done. There was no reason to doubt the evidence of a marshal that they had been vigilant about distributing the hay. Furthermore, even if it could be proven that the hay had not been distributed, C did not establish that such a failure had any causative effect in the context of the accident.
Comment
The conclusion by Judge Freedman that accidents are an inherent part of attending obstacle course races will be welcomed by organisers of similar events. C had entered the event knowing there were risks involved and had willingly signed a waiver. No amount of risk assessment and diligence by the Defendants could eliminate all risks. In fact, the majority of race participants fell from the monkey rings whilst navigating the obstacle and suffered no injuries. C was unfortunate that in her case, her landing resulted in serious injuries . However, this did not mean the Defendants were liable in negligence.
While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of these court updates, these articles are intended as a general overview and not intended, and should not be used, as a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. Neither Zurich Municipal, nor any member of the Zurich group of companies, will accept any responsibility for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of these articles
