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.

The Trading of Unlimited Liability Bank Shares in Nineteenth Century Ireland: The Bagehot Hypothesis

In the mid-1820s, banks became the first businesses in Great Britain and Ireland to be allowed to form freely on an unlimited liability joint-stock basis. Walter Bagehot warned that their shares would ultimately be owned by widows, orphans, and other impecunious individuals. Another hypothesis is that the governing bodies of these banks, constrained by special legal restrictions on share trading, acted effectively to prevent such shares being transferred to the less wealthy. We test both conjectures using the archives of an Irish joint-stock bank. The results do not support Bagehot's hypothesis.

Personal Injury Liability in Sport: Emerging Trends

Violent play during the course of a game or sport is not a new phenomenon; accompanying legal proceedings are. This article considers personal injury liability for injuries inflicted by a participant upon an opponent during a sporting pursuit. The jurisdictional focus is on England and Wales. The sporting emphasis of the article is on competitive, body contact games. The legal emphasis is on the tort of negligence. Analogous to the law of criminal assault, breach of "implied sporting consent" or the volenti of the claimant will be seen as central in application, as assessed through a number of objective criteria, including the skill level of the injuring party and whether that defendant was acting in "reckless disregard" of the claimant's safety. These criteria or evidential guidelines, which emerge from a careful doctrinal analysis of the relevant case law, are seen as crucial to the examination of the appropriate degree of care in negligence within the prevailing circumstances of sport. The article also searches for some theoretical coherency within the case law, premising it on Fletcher's idea of reciprocal risk-taking. In addition, the underlying policy-related issue of sport's social utility is discussed, as are practical matters relating to vicarious liability, insurance and the measure of damages for "lost sporting opportunity". Moreover, it will be shown that personal injury claims relating to sports participant liability now extend to a consideration of the duties of coaches, referees, sports governing bodies and schools. Finally, this article is set against the backdrop of an apparently spiralling "compensation culture" and the concomitant threat that that "blame culture" poses for the future promotion, operation and administration of sport.