ABSTRACT
This chapter provides a sustained analysis of the ‘law in action’ by focusing on Anderson v Lyotier [2008] as a case study. Anderson involved a claim brought in negligence against an experienced ski instructor. The case offers the most rigorous scrutiny of the duty of care incumbent upon a sports coach by a UK court. The chapter considers in detail the practical application of the duties of coaches discussed in previous chapters and, in particular, with regard to instruction, supervision and risk assessment. The judgment also engages with important duty of care issues of more general application, including the Bolam ‘defence’ (or test), the Woodbridge principle and the significant dangers of negligent entrenched practice. Furthermore, the court in Anderson was tasked with determining a matter likely to be of widespread interest to coaches, namely, the boundary between exposing athletes and participants to reasonable and/or unreasonable challenge(s). It is argued that although the High Court gave detailed consideration to the full factual matrix of the case in Anderson, ultimately, the threshold between negligent and non-negligent coaching practice was drawn too narrowly. Accordingly, this chapter emphasises the sometimes slender distinction between acceptable and unacceptable coaching practice when coaches discharge their duty of care.
