About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 181
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Paul Coffey

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Paul Coffey expressed that while the court had “every sympathy for the plaintiff”, the plaintiff’s accident and her injuries “were the result of the materialisation of an inherent risk of bouldering” rather than as a result of any failure on part of the defendants.

Background

The plaintiff was a student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) and a member of its Climbing Society.

On 2 February 2018, the plaintiff was climbing an indoor bouldering wall at the first defendant’s facility in Sandyford. This activity inherently involved a risk of falling where no ropes or harnesses were used, which risk was mitigated but not eliminated by wall design and floor matting.

While completing a Grade 2 route, the plaintiff fell 2.6m from the wall onto her feet, as a result of which she sustained a displaced fracture of the left ankle and a sprain of the right ankle.

The plaintiff issued proceedings claiming that she was permitted to participate in a hazardous activity without adequate risk assessment, warnings, training, supervision, or safety measures.

As against the first defendant, the plaintiff alleged that its safety policies required the provision of induction and supervision to novice participants, neither of which was provided to the plaintiff. In the circumstances, the plaintiff contended that she was not aware of the proper landing technique, which she maintained would have prevented her injuries.

As against the RCSI, the plaintiff alleged that by virtue of its policies governing student activities, the Climbing Society was obliged to carry out a risk assessment and to ensure that any premises at which a student event was held had appropriate safety systems in place.

The plaintiff further contended that the Society was required to ensure that attendees were provided with appropriate safety instruction or training, and that this obligation was not fulfilled.

The High Court

Having heard the evidence of the parties, Mr Justice Coffey considered that the issue under the law of negligence was the scope of the duty of care owed by the operator of a recreational facility to an adult of full capacity who voluntarily engages in an activity involving obvious and inherent risks, and whether that duty extends to the provision of instruction or supervision.

In the absence of relevant Irish authority, Mr Justice Coffey adopted the reasoning in Poppleton v Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee (a charity) [2008] EWCA Civ 646 and Maylin v Dacorum Sports Trust (t/a XC Sportspace) [2017] EWHC 378 (QB), which established that where an adult of full capacity freely chooses to engage in an activity involving inherent and obvious dangers, the law does not ordinarily require the operator of the facility to prevent participation, to train the participant, to supervise the activity or to protect the participant from the consequences of those dangers.

The judge noted: “The authorities further make clear that the provision of safety features, such as protective matting, does not render an inherently risky activity safe, nor does it impose a duty to ensure that injury cannot occur. It is obvious that such measures cannot eliminate the risk of serious injury resulting from an awkward fall. The fact that the operator charges for participation does not alter the analysis.”

Finding that the operator of a recreational facility is not generally under a duty to eliminate, reduce or guard against risks which are inherent and obvious in a voluntary leisure activity undertaken by adults of full capacity and that liability does not arise merely because injury results from the materialisation of such an inherent risk, the court concluded that the case could succeed only if the first named defendant assumed responsibility for the plaintiff’s safety beyond the ordinary scope of the general duty of care, whether by contract or by representation.

Having considered the first named defendants safety documents and Wall Rules, the court was satisfied that they could not be construed as imposing any contractual obligation “to induct, instruct, or supervise adult participants as a matter of course” and that there was no representation made or relied upon which could have given rise to a voluntary assumption of responsibility on the part of the first named defendant to provide any such measures.

As to the second defendant, the plaintiff’s climbing expert alleged a failure to carry out an activity-specific risk assessment and to adopt appropriate safety measures, referring to obligations under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and associated regulations.

Mr Justice Coffey explained that properly analysed, the 2005 Act relates to occupational safety in the context of employment and workplaces and neither creates obligations governing the organisation of voluntary recreational activities of the type nor creates a freestanding cause of action in damages for personal injury in favour of members of the public who are not employees.

Noting that the evidence did not establish an assumed responsibility on part of the second defendant to conduct a risk assessment or to provide training or supervision, Mr Justice Coffey moved on to consider whether the evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff had been inducted or briefed when she attended the facility.

In light of inter alia the documentary record, evidence of routine practice and the practical acknowledged limitations of large group inductions, the court considered that it was more likely than not that an induction was given by way of a short safety briefing to the arriving group the first time that the plaintiff attended the facility on 21 September 2017, but accepted that for whatever reason, the plaintiff did not personally receive, absorb or recall the information communicated.

As to causation, Mr Justice Coffey outlined that the plaintiff fell as a result of a momentary loss of grip while bouldering, an inherent risk, and that there was no evidence that the loss of grip “was caused by any lack of induction, instruction, training or supervision, nor that the provision of such measures would probably have prevented the fall”.

The judge found for the same reason that even if the second named defendant was under an obligation to carry out an activity-specific risk assessment in respect of the bouldering activity, there was no evidence before the court upon which it could find that any failure to do so caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s fall or injuries.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the claim.

Yates v Dublin Bouldering Gym Limited & Anor [2026] IEHC 181