Legal liability of coaches: a UK perspective

Attracting more coaches is fundamental to achievement of the European dimension in sport and the further promotion of sport in the European Union. Given the emerging relationship between the law and sports coaching, recruitment of such volunteers may prove problematic. Accordingly, this article critically considers the legal liability of sports coaches. To inform this debate, the issue of negligent coaching is critically scrutinised from a UK perspective, uncovering a number of distinct legal vulnerabilities facing volunteer coaches. This includes the inherent limitations of ‘objective reasonableness’ when defining the standard of care required in the particular circumstances. More specifically, fuller analysis of the justification of customary practice, and the legal doctrine of in loco parentis, reveals important ramifications for all organisations providing training and support for coaches. In short, it is argued that proactively safeguarding coaches from professional liability should be a priority for national governing bodies, and, following the recently published EU Work Plan for Sport for 2014–2017, the Expert Group on Human Resource Management in Sport. Importantly, given the EU’s supporting, coordinating and supplementing competence in developing the European dimension in sport, a Commission funded project to address the implications of the ‘compensation culture’ in sport is also recommended.

PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY OF AMATEURS: THE CONTEXT OF SPORTS COACHING

The developing intersection between the law of negligence and sports coaching in the UK provides a profoundly distinctive context, as compared to that of the more traditional learned professions, in which to critically examine the issue of professional liability. More specifically, detailed consideration of the Bolam test in the context of sports coaching, where the majority of coaches are volunteers, reinforces the Bolam doctrine as a control mechanism designed to protect both claimants and defendants alike. Importantly, a fuller analysis of related jurisprudence, even in instances where defendant coaches lack a formal qualification, and/or may not have engaged in considered and reasoned decision-making, reveals the potential for the Bolam test to operate as a quasi-defence, thereby safeguarding coaches from negligence liability. Nonetheless, in discharging this heightened standard of care incumbent upon them, coaches must ensure that the coaching practices adopted are regular, approved, and capable of withstanding robust and logical scrutiny. Ultimately, this article’s analysis of the principles of professional liability, in the specific circumstances of sports coaching, should prove to be of appreciably wider interest and utility for practitioners specialising in personal injury law.

Sports coaching and the law of negligence: implications for coaching practice

The ordinary principles of the law of negligence are applicable in the context of sport, including claims brought against volunteer and professional coaches. Adopting the perspective of the coach, this article intends to raise awareness of the emerging intersection between the law of negligence and sports coaching, by utilising an interdisciplinary analysis designed to better safeguard and reassure coaches mindful of legal liability. Detailed scrutiny of two cases concerning alleged negligent coaching, with complementary discussion of some of the ethical dilemmas facing modern coaches, reinforces the legal duty and obligation of all coaches to adopt objectively reasonable and justifiable coaching practices when interacting with athletes. Problematically, since research suggests that some coaching practice may be underpinned by “entrenched legitimacy” and “uncritical inertia”, it is argued that coach education and training should place a greater emphasis on developing a coach’s awareness and understanding of the evolving legal context in which they discharge the duty of care incumbent upon them.

Beyond the ‘Tomlinson Trap’: Analysing the Effectiveness of Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006

One of the intentions underpinning section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 was to provide reassurance to individual volunteers, and voluntary organisations, involved in what the provision called ‘desirable activities’ and including sport. The perception was that such volunteers, motivated by an apprehension about their increased vulnerability to negligence liability, and as driven by a fear of a wider societal compensation culture, were engaging excessively in risk-averse behaviour to the detriment of such socially desirable activities. Academic commentary on section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 has largely regarded the provision as unnecessary and doing little more than restating existing common law practice. This article argues otherwise and, on critically reviewing the emerging jurisprudence, posits the alternative view that section 1, in practice, affords an enhanced level of protection and safeguarding for individuals undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity. Nonetheless, the occasionally idiosyncratic judicial interpretation given to term ‘desirable activity’, potentially compounded by recent enactment of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015, remains problematic. Two points of interest will be used to inform this debate. First, an analysis of the then House of Lords’ decision in Tomlinson and its celebrated ‘balancing exercise’ when assessing reasonableness in the context of negligence liability. Second, a fuller analysis of the application of section 1 in the specific context of negligence actions relating to the coaching of sport where it is argued that the, albeit limited, jurisprudence might support the practical utility of a heightened evidential threshold of gross negligence.

MODERN SPORT COACHING AND THE LAW: IMPLICATIONS FOR COACH EDUCATION

Introduction
The intersection between the law of negligence and sport coaching in the UK is a developing area (Partington, 2014; Kevan, 2005). Crucially, since the law of negligence may be regarded as generally similar everywhere (Magnus, 2006), with the predominance of volunteer coaches in the UK reflective of the majority of countries in the world (Duffy et al., 2011), a detailed scrutiny of this relationship from the perspective of the coach uncovers important implications for coach education beyond this jurisdiction.  
Argumentation
Fulfilment of the legal duty of discharging reasonable care may be regarded as consistent with the ethical obligation not to expose athletes to unreasonable risks of injury (Mitten, 2013). More specifically, any ‘profession’ requiring ‘special skill or competence’ (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582), including the coaching of sport (e.g., Davenport v Farrow [2010] EWHC 550), requires a higher standard of care to be displayed than would be expected of the ordinary reasonable person (Lunney & Oliphant, 2013; Jones & Dugdale, 2010). For instance, volunteer coaches with no formal qualifications (e.g., Fowles v Bedfordshire County Council [1996] ELR 51) would be judged by this benchmark of professional liability (Powell & Stewart, 2012). Further, as the principles of coaching are constantly assessed and revised (Cassidy et al., 2009; Taylor & Garratt, 2010), so too is the legal standard of care required of coaches (Powell & Stewart, 2012). Problematically, ethical concerns may include coaches being unwilling to increase knowledge, abusive treatment of players and incompetence/inexperience (Haney et al., 1998). These factors accentuate coaches’ exposure to civil liability.
Implications
It is imperative that coaches have an awareness of this emerging intersection and develop a ‘proactive risk assessment lens’ (Hartley, 2010). In addition to supporting the professionalisation of sport coaching, coach education/CPD focused on the legal and ethical aspects of coaching (Duffy et al., 2011; Telfer, 2010; Haney et al., 1998) would enhance the safety and welfare of performers, safeguard coaches from litigation risk, and potentially improve all levels of coaching (Partington, 2014). Interestingly, there is evidence to suggest a demand from coaches for more training on health and safety issues, including risk management and (ir)responsible coaching (Stirling et al., 2012). Accordingly, critical examination of the issue of negligent coaching would inform coach education by: enabling the modelling and sharing of best practice; unpacking important ethical concerns; and, further informing the classification of coaching as a ‘profession’.

"IT'S JUST NOT CRICKET": ANALYZING SPORTS NEGLIGENCE IN THE UK

This presentation is about the law of professional negligence as it applies to sport. The presentation asks, paradoxically, if the skills you have as a sports coach or official might ever, on not being reasonably applied, leave you or your sport vulnerable to a claim in negligence. To inform this debate, the recent judgment in Bartlett v English Cricket Board Association of Cricket Officials (unreported, County Court (Birmingham), 27 August 2015) is critically considered. Arguably, this case is indicative of the extension of tortious liability in the UK, most notably, for officials and coaches in the context of amateur sport, essentially requiring HHJ Lopez to determine what might be termed the ‘professional liability of an amateur’.

WHAT DOES THE SOCIAL ACTION, RESPONSIBILITY & HEROISM ACT 2015 MEAN FOR SPORTS VOLUNTEERS AND NGBS?

By highlighting the context of sports coaching in the UK, this article reveals the considerable limitations of both section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, and the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015, in safeguarding (volunteer) coaches from negligence liability.

Alleles that increase risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus are not associated with increased risk for Alzheimer's disease

Although epidemiological studies suggest that type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) increases the risk of late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), the biological basis of this relationship is not well understood. The aim of this study was to examine the genetic comorbidity between the 2 disorders and to investigate whether genetic liability to T2DM, estimated by a genotype risk scores based on T2DM associated loci, is associated with increased risk of LOAD. This study was performed in 2 stages. In stage 1, we combined genotypes for the top 15 T2DM-associated polymorphisms drawn from approximately 3000 individuals (1349 cases and 1351 control subjects) with extracted and/or imputed data from 6 genome-wide studies (>10,000 individuals; 4507 cases, 2183 controls, 4989 population controls) to form a genotype risk score and examined if this was associated with increased LOAD risk in a combined meta-analysis. In stage 2, we investigated the association of LOAD with an expanded T2DM score made of 45 well-established variants drawn from the 6 genome-wide studies. Results were combined in a meta-analysis. Both stage 1 and stage 2 T2DM risk scores were not associated with LOAD risk (odds ratio = 0.988; 95% confidence interval, 0.972-1.004; p = 0.144 and odds ratio = 0.993; 95% confidence interval, 0.983-1.003; p = 0.149 per allele, respectively). Contrary to expectation, genotype risk scores based on established T2DM candidates were not associated with increased risk of LOAD. The observed epidemiological associations between T2DM and LOAD could therefore be a consequence of secondary disease processes, pleiotropic mechanisms, and/or common environmental risk factors. Future work should focus on well-characterized longitudinal cohorts with extensive phenotypic and genetic data relevant to both LOAD and T2DM.

Genome-wide association study reveals greater polygenic loading for schizophrenia in cases with a family history of illness

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of schizophrenia have yielded more than 100 common susceptibility variants, and strongly support a substantial polygenic contribution of a large number of small allelic effects. It has been hypothesized that familial schizophrenia is largely a consequence of inherited rather than environmental factors. We investigated the extent to which familiality of schizophrenia is associated with enrichment for common risk variants detectable in a large GWAS. We analyzed single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data for cases reporting a family history of psychotic illness (N = 978), cases reporting no such family history (N = 4,503), and unscreened controls (N = 8,285) from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC1) study of schizophrenia. We used a multinomial logistic regression approach with model-fitting to detect allelic effects specific to either family history subgroup. We also considered a polygenic model, in which we tested whether family history positive subjects carried more schizophrenia risk alleles than family history negative subjects, on average. Several individual SNPs attained suggestive but not genome-wide significant association with either family history subgroup. Comparison of genome-wide polygenic risk scores based on GWAS summary statistics indicated a significant enrichment for SNP effects among family history positive compared to family history negative cases (Nagelkerke's R(2 ) = 0.0021; P = 0.00331; P-value threshold <0.4). Estimates of variability in disease liability attributable to the aggregate effect of genome-wide SNPs were significantly greater for family history positive compared to family history negative cases (0.32 and 0.22, respectively; P = 0.031). We found suggestive evidence of allelic effects detectable in large GWAS of schizophrenia that might be specific to particular family history subgroups. However, consideration of a polygenic risk score indicated a significant enrichment among family history positive cases for common allelic effects. Familial illness might, therefore, represent a more heritable form of schizophrenia, as suggested by previous epidemiological studies.