complied with UK standards and
certainly before the product was
delivered to the end user. As the
manufacturer did not follow this process,
it is partially liable, running the risk of
reputational damage and nancial loss.
Local authority
As the commissioning party, the LA’s
liability covers a number of points:
1. The LA is responsible for
maintaining the park, so the 5–12
age-restriction sign should have been
clearly visible to the teenagers
2. The age restriction sign did not warn
anyone outside this age range against
using the equipment (although signs
excluding liability for death or personal
injury have no legal authority)
3. The LA was ultimately responsible
for the safety of playground users.
It should have:
a. Checked if the
material proposed
for the climbing frame was safe: public
safety trumps cost concerns
b. Checked if appropriate UK quality
control procedures had been carried out
c. Checked if the correct anchoring
mechanism was used for galvanised
steel
d. Checked if the composition of the
playground surface should have been
displayed.
Given the above, the Health & Safety
Executive is likely to prosecute the LA for
failing in its duty of care to the public.
The individual
What responsibility did the injured
teenager and her friends bear?
1.The teenagers were trespassing
2.Did the teenager ignore the agerestriction
sign or was it not visible?
3.The teenager’s injury was
specically allergy-related, so
the causal link between the
climbing frame and the
anaphylaxis is tenuous.
It is likely that she
would be held partially
responsible for her own injuries.
However, the point is that, because
of its poorly maintained state,
children’s climbing frame?
Had they considered how
heavily used the climbing frame
would be?
Were any weight restrictions
indicated? Did the designer or
the LA recommend installing the
age-restriction sign?
The designer should have:
Checked the grading of the galvanised
steel and asked the manufacturer if it
complied with BSI steel specications,
and would withstand regular daily use,
and over what period
Tested the frame’s durability
Set out indemnities and warranties
in their contract with the local
authority and agreed a scope for
regulatory compliance. Although liability
for death and negligence cannot be
excluded, companies can protect their
business by limiting their exposure to
certain scenarios.
Given the above, the designer could
be held partially liable, both in breach
of its contract with the local authority
(which could pursue a civil claim against
it), and of health and safety regulations.
Manufacturer
The manufacturer should have told the
designer it was outsourcing the job to its
overseas facility, enabling the designer
to carry out due diligence and check if
the LA was happy with the outsourcing.
Although an experienced
manufacturer might have queried
if galvanised steel was
appropriate for children’s
playground equipment, it
would normally only be
responsible for the quality
of the manufacturing.
Nonetheless, having outsourced the
job to a subsidiary, the manufacturer
should have checked the steel
LEGALLY SPEAKING
anyone using the climbing frame might
have been injured and possibly very
seriously. Because of the chain of
events leading to the accident, liability
lies with more than one party and will
be apportioned according to the level of
responsibility each bears.
This case study may
seem far-fetched,
but it provides a
stark illustration that
establishing liability where
several parties are involved
can be complicated. As
recent reported cases
demonstrate, there is likely
to be more legislation in this
area, not less. The tragic case
of the teenager who suffered a
fatal allergic reaction to sandwich
ingredients demonstrates the cascade
of liability – from Pret a Manger, for
inadequate labelling of their products,
to the air stewards for not using the
debrillator, the pilot for not making an
emergency landing, the airline for failing
in their duty of care during the ight,
and the girl and her parents for not
checking the sandwich contents.
In this increasingly interconnected
world, it is crucial for all parties
involved in commissioning, designing,
manufacturing and installing a project
to understand where their liabilities
lie and mitigate their exposure to risk
where possible.
www.ied.org.uk 29
/www.ied.org.uk