Evidence suggests fractures were sustained earlier in athletics case

Davenport v Farrow

(Queen's Bench Division — 18 March 2010)

A young athlete's coach was not liable for the vertebral stress fractures he had sustained because, on the evidence, the athlete had probably sustained them before he engaged the coach.

The claimant, Mr Davenport, was a track athlete of world class potential. He was coached and managed by Mr Farrow, a successful athletics coach, from 1999 to 2005. The claimant alleged that he sustained stress fractures to his back during high altitude training in South Africa in late 2004 and despite complaining of back pain, the defendant did not refer him for investigation. Had this occurred then he claimed his back could have been treated conservatively with rest rather than surgical intervention.

The defendant denied any complaint was made by the claimant and, on the balance of probabilities, the stress fractures occurred much earlier, prior to the commencement of his coaching.

The claimant had a history of back problems and the experts agreed that stress fractures occurring in late 2004 would have been marked by the onset of acute back pain.

The claimant continued to compete in 2005, posting personal best times in January and February, and winning a silver medal at the European Indoor Championships in March 2005. He made no complaint of back problems to any of the treating physicians at any of the events in which he participated, or to any of the various medical practitioners he had consulted for other reasons in 2004.

It was also found that the intensity of the claimant's training did not change substantially in late 2004 such as to provide an explanation for the injury and that the medical history was consistent with the fractures having occurred much earlier. This being the case, the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving the fractures occurred when alleged and the claim failed.

COMMENT

This case highlights how important it is to obtain comprehensive evidence on the issue of causation. The totality of the evidence simply did not support the claimant's case. Considerable weight was placed on expert evidence commenting on what the claimant would and would not have been able to do if his alleged case was correct compared to what he had in fact been able to accomplish. The claimant failed to prove a causative link between his injury and his high altitude training in 2004. The case is a reminder that first principles should not be overlooked where direct causation evidence is weak. Craig Rouse, BLM Southampton

The following law report contributed by specialist insurance practice Berrymans Lace Mawer (www.blm-law.com) first appeared in Post Magazine on20 May 2010.

Disclaimer: The law report contains information of general interest about current legal issues, it does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal advice. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in any particular case.