Liability of organisers of sporting events for the actions of spectators

By Tim Kevan and Duncan McNair

As we experience the lull between the end of the football World Cup and the start of the Premiership season, it is an appropriate time to reflect on the potential liabilities of those who organise such sporting events.  Obvious ones include in contract to ensure that the event runs smoothly and under the occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 to ensure that the premises are safe.  However, one potential liability which is often not considered is that which might arise for the actions of spectators.

This raises the issue of hooliganism which has troubled football in particular for so long.  However, it also raises the possibility of potential liability for high risk individuals such as the attacker of Monica Seles or even terrorists.  There are two particular cases in this area which are little known:  Cunningham and Others v Reading Football Club [1991] PIQR 141 and Hosie v Arbroath Football Club [1978] SLT 122.

Cunningham v Reading Football Club

In Cunningham and Others v Reading Football Club a football club was held liable for injuries caused to police officers on duty at a football match because those injuries had resulted from the club’s neglect to take precautions against clearly foreseeable acts of violent supporters.  The Claimants, who included both police officers and spectators, had attended a football match between Reading and Bristol City.  The Claimants were struck by pieces of concrete loosened from the terraces and thrown at them by spectators. 

The Defendants had known in advance of the risk that there might be crowd violence.  The match was considered to be a ‘local derby’.  The atmosphere was likely to be even more charged since the game would affect the promotion hopes and Bristol City’s supporters were known at the time to have a reputation for violent behaviour.  The Defendant was also aware that at a match about four months earlier, spectators had loosened concrete by kicking and jumping on it.  They had then thrown the lumps of concrete at the police.  The Defendant, despite the serious consequences, took no action to prevent or even to make it harder for spectators to loosen the concrete.  The Claimants brought their actions for breach of duty under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 and also in negligence.  Drake J held that the police and the spectators were visitors of the Defendants and as such the Defendant owed a duty to take such steps as were necessary to ensure that their visitors were safe.  The stadium was variously described as being in an appalling dilapidated state.  Drake J considered the conduct of the spectators as being easily foreseeable and, as such, a reasonably prudent occupier would have realised that the concrete in the ground was dangerous, because it might supply a source of missiles, and would have taken steps to remove or minimise the risk.  The judge also commented that the exoneration by a Football Association Commission of Inquiry was irrelevant for the purposes of his consideration of whether or not there had been a breach of the common duty of care under the Act.

The facts in Cunningham were unattractive for the Defendant.  Every conceivable warning signal seems to have been present – it was a derby match, promotion/relegation issues, a club whose supporters had a reputation, a dilapidated ground which provided potential missiles, a history of concrete being used as missiles.

However, it is possible that the circumstances of any individual case need not necessarily be so damning for liability to attach to the organiser.  For example, it would be interesting to have seen the result of the case if the offending supporters were from a club that was unassociated with violence.  So, too, if the sport were less welll known for violence.

 

Hosie v Arbroath Football Club

A further example of a football club being held liable for the actions of spectators arose in the case of Hosie v Arbroath Football Club where the Claimant was injured as a rowdy crowd attempted to force open a gate.  It was held that it was reasonably foreseeable that such a crowd might attempt to force the gate open.  Consequently, the Defendant was liable due to their failure to maintain the gate.

 

Conclusion

The principles enunciated in, for example, Cunningham may well be extended to encompass other situations in the future.  For example, if Monica Seles had been stabbed at Wimbledon rather than abroad by the Steffi Graf fan, the question may have been raised as to whether the All England Club would have been negligent in failing to provide adequate security.  So, too, in relation to players who are hit by missiles thrown from the crowd.  Even terrorist attacks may come within the scope of the decisions, particularly as sporting events may well be considered high risk as a target.

If any theme may be drawn from the limited litigation in this field to date, it is that organisers need to have regard to the nature of the crowd they are expecting and to consider any physical features of the sports ground that they operate which may result in injury to other spectators. 

Tim Kevan is the co-author of a book entitled ‘Sports Personal Injury’ published by Sweet & Maxwell.