Complusory Insurance bill Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Complusory Insurance bill - Essay Example Whilst participation consent is implied in respect of injuries falling within the ambit of inherent risks in the game, the extent of this "consent" has become contentious in practice with negligence liability arising for non-contact sport in addition to contact sport. For example, in the case of Condon v Basi ([1985] 1 WLR) it was asserted that an "inherent risk" in the game for the purpose of determining implied consent was essentially a question of fact, dependent on the circumstances of the game, including the regulations, the rules and customs and the inherent dangers. It was further stated that this was an objective test. Accordingly, the parameters of liability have remained uncertain with regard to who the appropriate tortfeaser is, along with the extent of liability for both professional and amateur players bringing claims in negligence. For example, in the leading case of Smoldon v Whitworth (1997] PIQR 133) it was determined that a referee of the Rugby Union match was liable for injuries suffered by a rugby player by another player as a result of a collapsed scrum. In this particular case, the referee had failed to enforce the rules of the International Rugby Board as applied to a rugby game, in which there were more than 20 collapsed scrums. Furthermore, there had also been complaints from certain players, a warning from one of the touch judges and shouts from the spectators. Furthermore, in the more recent case of Vowles v Evans ([2002] EWHC 2612), the Court of Appeal asserted that at all levels of sport a referee owed a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of players. Legal commentators have suggested that these cases by analogy point towards potential liability of coaches for failing to take reasonable care for the safety of their players. However, the liability of coaches remains ambiguous as it has been untested, however in light the Smoldon decision, the categories of potential defendants has clearly widened in sports injury claims. It is also important to mention that the relevant organisation putting on the game could also be liable for the player's injuries. For example, in the case of Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001]2 WLR 1256, it was held that the Board owed Watson a duty of care to provide appropriate resuscitation equipment and a person or persons qualified to use such equipment at the ringside. The Court made it clear that it was the duty of the Board and of those advising it on medical matters to be proactive in accounting for foreseeable risks and to seek competent advice as to how a recognised danger could be combated. Firstly, in the case of Condon v Basi ([1985]) the Court of Appe