Expert Witness Journal Issue 63 October 2025 - Flipbook - Page 29
Heads up! Liability for injuries caused
to spectators at sporting events
by Jasmine Murphy, Gatehouse Chambers
In May 2025, Golfweek reported that the Spanish
player Jon Rahm struck a fan with a golf ball during
the PGA Championship 2025. It turns out that was
the third time this player had accidentally potted a
spectator with a golf ball. The time before, in 2022,
the injured spectator (a news anchor) was reported
to have su昀昀ered facial injuries.
and skill could make it, they were not insurers and
did not warrant absolute safety. Here, the incident
was quite extraordinary and there was no history
of such events happening in the past. Additionally,
it was found that there was no obligation to protect
against a danger incident to the entertainment
which any reasonable spectator foresaw and of
which he took the risk.
Although there is a wide body of case law establishing
the duty of care owed by participants in sports to each
other, what is the legal situation where a spectator,
or an employee with duties at a match, is injured by
a golf ball, football, ice hockey puck, vehicle, horse
or even a player accidentally leaving the area of play?
Although it may seem fair that they should be able
to claim damages from the organiser of the game,
or even the player, is that the correct legal analysis?
Lord Justice Scrutton said: What is reasonable
care would depend on the perils which might be
reasonably expected to occur, and the extent to
which the ordinary spectator might be expected
to appreciate and take the risk of such perils.
Illustrations are the risk of being hit by a cricket ball
at Lord’s or the Oval, where any ordinary spectator
in my view expects and takes the risk of a ball being
hit with considerable force amongst the spectators,
and does not expect any structure which will prevent
any ball from reaching the spectators. An even more
common case is one which may be seen all over
the country every Saturday afternoon, spectators
admitted for payment to a 昀椀eld to witness a football
or hockey match, and standing along a line near the
touchline. No one expects the persons receiving
payment to erect such structures or nets that no
spectator can be bit by a ball kicked or hit violently
from the 昀椀eld of play towards the spectators. The
昀椀eld is safe to stand on, and the spectators take the
risk of the game.
This situation has been considered several times by
the courts over many decades. Unfortunately for
claimants, these cases are very hard to win. The
reported cases mostly come down on the side of
the defendant club or arena, although it seems that
golfers remain most at risk from being successfully
sued.
Early Authorities
The history of claims by spectators probably starts
almost 100 years ago with Hall v Brooklands
Auto Racing Club. Two spectators standing at the
railings of a car racetrack were killed by a car that
was thrown into the air after a minor collision.
Although this case predated the Occupiers’ Liability
Act 1957, the common law recognised the duty of an
occupier to take reasonable care to see that visitors
were reasonably safe. The defendant’s appeal against
a 昀椀nding of liability was successful. Although there
was a duty on the racetrack owners to see that the
course was as free from danger as reasonable care
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
Hall was applied by the Court of Appeal in Murray
and another v Harringay Arena LD where a child
spectator was hit in the eye by an ice hockey puck
during an ice hockey game. Although there was
evidence that pucks were hit out of the arena from
time to time, there was no evidence to show that a
serious injury such as this had happened before.
Considering the position in contract, the Court
27
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2025
