When umpires owe a duty of care, but they weren’t negligent, and ‘rain didn’t stop play’
What happened?
A man was playing club cricket in 2012 when he was injured when fielding and performing a sliding stop.
He made a claim against the English Cricket Board Association of Cricket Officials, alleging that he was injured due to the unsafe condition of the cricket ground, and that the umpires had negligently allowed cricket to be played on a ground that was too wet.
The court accepted that the umpires had been very careful, and their diligence was evidenced by their decision that it was too dangerous to play on the originally selected square at the arranged start time. As a result of this, they had a drier square prepared and delayed the start.
The umpires were clear that they both thoroughly inspected the ground in order to ascertain if the conditions were safe to allow play to proceed. They were both equally clear that had it been dangerous or unreasonable to play cricket that day they would not have sanctioned the game proceeding. This was accepted in court as a credible decision.
The man, could not, however, say how he was injured. It was clear in court, from his own account and those who witnessed the incident, that he did not trip, slip or stumble on the wet grass. It was equally clear that he made a deliberate and conscious choice to field the ball by using the well-known fielding technique of the sliding stop.
He also changed his evidence and could not say which leg he led the stop with. There were also issues explored in court about whether the injury happened when running or slipping, and medical records provided by doctors and surgeons did not clarify how the accident happened.
The judge found the man to not be an ‘impressive witness’ and not ‘an accurate historian of fact’.
Legal Outcome
In the 2015 court case, the judge said: “It is a well-established principle that referees officiating over an organised sports event owe a duty of care to the participants in that event. By extension, that duty of care is owed by the umpires in a cricket match to the players.
The umpires were, in short, much more than casual observers. In order to reach their decision they made a detailed assessment of the conditions and, therefore, I find it is likely on the balance of probabilities that they were in the best position to accurately determine whether it was dangerous or unreasonable to play.”
What can we learn from what happened?
This is a reminder that officials, in this case cricket umpires, have a duty of care for the participants. The level of duty may depend upon the level of sport being played (an amateur umpire is not expected to have the expertise of a professional), but it must still be exercised.
The judge was happy with these umpires’ decision, and it really didn’t help the poor man who was hurt that the actual mechanical cause of the injury could not be confirmed.
Source of Information
APIL Sports Injuries in the Courts Webinar delivered by KC Gordon Exall