Vowles v Evans [2003] EWCA Civ 318

A rugby player was paralysed after a scrum collapsed. He sued the referee for allowing an inexperienced substitute into the front row. The court held that referees owe a duty of care to players to enforce safety rules, establishing referee liability for negligence.

Facts

The claimant, Mr Richard Vowles, was rendered tetraplegic after a scrum collapsed during an amateur rugby match in January 2000. The injury occurred after a prop forward had to be substituted. The replacement prop, Mr Christopher Ley, had not played in the front row for many years and lacked the necessary experience. The claimant argued that the referee, Mr Michael Evans (the first defendant), was negligent in permitting an unsuitable replacement to play in the front row without making proper enquiries as to his experience and training, contrary to the Laws of the Game intended to ensure player safety. The trial judge found the referee liable in negligence. The referee and the Welsh Rugby Union appealed this decision.

Issues

The Court of Appeal considered the following key legal issues:

1. Whether a rugby referee owes a legal duty of care to the players.
2. If a duty of care exists, what is the appropriate standard of that care?
3. Whether the referee, in this instance, was in breach of that duty.
4. Whether the referee’s breach caused the claimant’s injury.
5. Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent or had willingly accepted the risk of injury (volenti non fit injuria).

Judgment

The Court of Appeal, in a leading judgment by Lord Phillips MR, dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial judge’s decision. The court’s reasoning was structured as follows:

Duty of Care

The court unequivocally affirmed that a referee owes a duty of care to players. The relationship between a referee and players is one of proximity, and it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose such a duty. The referee’s role is not merely an adjudicator but an official responsible for ensuring the game is played according to rules designed for player safety.

In our judgment the judge was right to hold that the referee of a game of rugby football owes a duty of care to the players.

Standard of Care

The standard of care is that which is appropriate in all the circumstances. The court held that the standard is that of a reasonably competent referee at the level of the game being played, not that of a professional international referee. A distinction was drawn between errors of judgment made in the ‘heat of the moment’ during fast-paced play, and decisions made during a stoppage where there is time for consideration.

For the reasons that I have given I consider that the judge was correct to hold that the standard of care that the referee was required to exercise was that to be expected of a referee of his grade refereeing a match of the level of which this one was being played.

Breach of Duty

The court found a clear breach of duty. The Laws of the Game, specifically Law 3.5(c), placed an obligation to ensure substitute front row forwards were suitably trained. The referee’s failure to make any enquiry as to the replacement’s experience and fitness for the position was a direct failure to implement a crucial safety provision. This was not a ‘heat of the moment’ error but a failure during a stoppage in play.

In our judgment the failure of the referee to take any step to see whether the replacement front row forward was suitably trained and experienced was a breach of the duty that he owed to the players. The trial judge was right so to hold.

Causation

The court agreed with the trial judge that had the referee made the appropriate enquiries, he would have discovered the substitute’s inexperience. This would have required him, under the Laws, to order that scrums become ‘uncontested’. On the balance of probabilities, had this occurred, the catastrophic collapse would not have happened, and the claimant would not have been injured.

Contributory Negligence and Volenti

The court rejected the defence of volenti non fit injuria (willing acceptance of risk). While players consent to the ordinary risks of the game, they do not consent to the risk of a referee being negligent in applying safety rules. The claimant’s own actions did not contribute to the injury, so there was no finding of contributory negligence.

Implications

This is a landmark case confirming that sports referees can be held liable in negligence for injuries sustained by players. It establishes that a referee’s duty extends to the enforcement of safety rules, particularly those designed to prevent serious injury. The decision highlights that while errors of judgment during play may be tolerated, a failure to follow fundamental safety protocols, especially during stoppages, can lead to liability. It has had significant implications for the training and responsibilities of referees in amateur sport and for the insurance obligations of governing bodies.

Verdict: The appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment holding the referee liable for negligence was upheld.

Source: Vowles v Evans [2003] EWCA Civ 318