Facilities, Equipment and Clothing

Facilities, Equipment and Clothing Professor Thomas Lambert, for many years the editor of the Association of Trial Lawyers of American Law Reporter, gave a succinct description of the social policy of deterrence that underlies the tort of negligence: ‘a fence at the top of a cliff is better than an ambulance in the valley below’.1 When dealing with the physical backdrop to activities there are again many instructive points that can be taken from prior experience, and many now rather more sophisticated than a simple barrier. But as with ‘driver error’ on the roads, the ‘people’ aspects are usually very much more important than the ‘property’ aspects. However, much depends on the nature of the activity; for example, with an airsport such as paragliding or a mountaineering specialism such as waterfall ice-climbing, the correct selection of terrain and equipment is literally life-defining. Even away from such extreme sports the correct use of ‘low tech’ gear can be essential, particularly the issue of clothing, so these are never considerations that should be overlooked. Facilities The surrounding physical milieu is obviously an essential backdrop to safety. We have seen that location is a vital consideration, both for overnight accommodation and in the particular circumstances where the activity is to take place. Risk assessment often requires a balancing of sometimes competing considerations. For example, the murder in 1996 of Caroline Dickinson in a youth hostel on a school trip to Brittany was possible because doors were required to be left unlocked due to the need for a quick exit in case of fire. Risk assessment of such considerations in residential accommodation is difficult enough, but many outdoor activities combine with camping, and here there are special considerations. Induction, briefings and ongoing assessment as to hazards will be even more important. In 1995 an outdoor company Mountain Ventures Ltd was prosecuted and fined £8,000 following serious injury to Lyndsey Henderson, aged 12 and part of a school group. They were bivouacking overnight in Snowdonia, and she got up in the night and stepped over a low wall, not realising a cliff face was on the other side, falling thirty feet into a quarry and suffering a punctured lung, a ruptured spleen and broken ribs. No-one in the school group had been made aware of the potential dangers of this campsite, which was a salutary reminder of risk assessment of the surroundings and a briefing to

participants. Despite this disaster, that company has continued with an excellent safety record to provide adventurous activities for schools and other groups, regularly inspected by the AALA. In 2000 the AALA also pointed out a ‘near miss’ on a campsite, when outside the activity centre the driver of a passing car lost control and drove through the hedge, stopping just short of a tent full of children. The AALA suggestion of a ‘prudent’ response was ‘to give this possibility some thought when choosing a site to pitch tents’.3 Probably the most risky scenario of most campsites is when they are ‘excrementally challenged’, and this is also a risk on farm visits too. This hazard became more widely known following the case brought by the parents of Tom Dowling, aged four and from Edgware Infants School, who brought an action against Bowmans Farm, near St Albans, and Barnet Council, the LEA. That was the third time E.coli 157 had been contracted at the farm in six weeks but his parents were not told of the potential risk. Until the visit Tom Dowling was described as ‘a bright, lively nursery class pupil’, but following a twelve day coma at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, a ‘brain scan revealed he would probably never see, hear, walk, talk or feed himself again’. The infection was traced to a goat in the ‘touching pen’, which was later destroyed, although no-one saw the boy contact an animal. However, E.coli 157 bacteria are found in the faeces of infected animals and on anything it touches, and are therefore easily transmitted from hand to mouth, particularly when children may not be able to wash with anti-bacterial soap for the recommended four minutes. The Dowlings’ solicitor indicated that ‘those children went to that farm like lambs to the slaughter. It is vital people realize the risk when they visit farms, particularly with small children’. A representative of the National Association of Farms for Schools stated that E.coli 157 was ‘a constant risk which could be minimized by awareness. Bowmans is a model farm that was extremely unlucky’.4 Subsequently the HASPEV Handbook for Group Leaders in 2003 quotes the Chief Medical Officer’s statement in 2000 that ‘there is a link between farm visits and infection in young children’ and indicates the precautions that should be taken.5