In August 2018, the Claimant sustained severe spinal injuries while surfing at an artificial wave lagoon operated by Adventure Parc Snowdonia. He fell and struck his neck on the shallow lagoon floor, which he argued was inadequately safe.

However, the judge found that the Defendant had taken reasonable steps to manage the inherent risks associated with surfing by conducting risk assessments and providing clear safety instructions. The court found that the operator had fulfilled its duty of care, and the claim was dismissed.

What Happened

The Claimant was injured while surfing at Adventure Parc Snowdonia, a man-made lagoon designed to create waves of varying difficulty. During an intermediate surfing session, the Claimant fell and struck his neck on a shallow part of the lagoon floor, causing severe spinal injuries. The lagoon was specifically designed with different depths to produce surfable waves for different skill levels.

The Claimant’s case

The Claimant argued that the lagoon was unsafe, particularly the shallow reef where he fell.  His case was that it did not provide sufficient depth to protect surfers from serious injury in the event that they fell. He argued the operator had not done enough to warn him about the specific dangers associated with that shallow area or to train him on how to avoid injury.

He also suggested that the whole design of the lagoon prioritized creating a surfing experience over ensuring the safety of its users. The Claimant argued that the safety measures in place were insufficient to mitigate the risks involved, especially for surfers at his intermediate level.

The Defendant’s case

The Defendant argued that the lagoon’s design, including the varying depths, was essential for its purpose and that it met relevant safety standards. They pointed out that all surfers, including the Claimant, were provided with clear instructions and safety briefings about the lagoon's layout and the associated risks.

They also emphasised that surfing is inherently risky, and the Claimant was aware of those risks. As an experienced surfer, he had been given sufficient information to understand the dangers involved. The operator maintained that their safety measures, which included lifeguards, emergency protocols, and regular risk assessments, were appropriate and met industry standards.

Findings

HHJ Bird found that Adventure Parc Snowdonia had fulfilled its duty of care to the Claimant by taking reasonable steps to ensure the safety of all participants. The judge recognised that the lagoon’s design, including the reef’s shallow depth, was necessary for creating surfable waves, which was central to the lagoon’s purpose. There was no evidence suggesting that a different design could have achieved the same functionality while reducing risks further.

The judge found that the risk assessments conducted by the Defendant were thorough and that all surfers were provided with clear warnings and instructions regarding the inherent risks of surfing at the facility. The court noted that the Claimant, who was an experienced surfer, had sufficient knowledge of these risks and had been briefed on the specific dangers, including the depth of the water over the reef.

Judge Bird also considered the lack of any prior similar incidents over several years of operation as evidence that the Defendant had managed the risks appropriately. The judge determined that the Claimant’s accident, while unfortunate, did not result from any negligence on the part of the Defendant but rather was an inherent risk associated with the activity itself. Therefore, the claim was dismissed.

Conclusion

This case is a useful example of how a court may assess liability in sports and other recreational activities involving inherent risks. It underscores the importance of demonstrating that a participant is aware of, and accepted, certain risks, if such a defence is to be successfully run.

The judgement can be found here.