LAW REPORT :  McFLY v. ANYTHING GOES BC (2015)

In this landmark case , which has serious implications for all bridge clubs in the UK , the committee was found liable for not carrying out a formal risk assessment with regards to " flying bridgemates " and/or other assorted objects capable of being propelled through the air at speed. Following the precedent laid down in an earlier case Phee v. Gordon (2013 ) , where a player was hit by a flying golf ball , the judge held that the bridge club was negligent for failing to recognise the risk of a player being struck by a hard fast moving object during competitive play. The judgement handed down was as follows :


Evidence of numerous altercations at the tables clearly support the inference that a player in a pique of temper might well pick up an object to throw it with force anywhere across the room , whether aim is taken or not. Whatever flight path the object takes , there will always be a real risk that someone will get hurt by consequence of either a direct hit or ricochet. 
It was clear that the club were well aware of the potential danger, created by having such lethal projectiles close to the hands of players with attitude problems , volatile temperaments , and short fuses. Given that committee members themselves were prone to losing their cool on many occasions , they too must have known of the risk.
The fact that the club took no measures to warn players, especially visitors and inexperienced newcomers was , without doubt , a significant failure of their duty of care to ensure the safety and well being of all those participating at the tables. In the Phee case , the victim's contributory negligence by failing to duck was held to be minimal. The lion's share of the blame completely rested with the club's committee , who failed to recognise the nature , frequency and magnitude of the risk involved. 
Crowded fairways and over-hit shots are a common occurrence , especially when players get wound up and angry at having to wait to play their next shots. Impatience , frustration and anger are the part and parcel of a golfer's competitive personality. For bridge clubs , the message is just as obvious. Warnings signs are essential, especially on nights where players tempers are likely to be frayed. Any reasonable risk assessment would flag up an urgent need to make regular public announcements " for players to be on their guard against flying objects " , " to hide behind screens whenever possible " ,  and/or to wear " appropriate hear gear for added protection " Moreover , the introduction of formal rules and safety training to help reduce the risk of being hit needed be put into place at the earliest opportunity. 
It cannot always be inferred that players , especially the elderly , hard-of-hearing, slow reflexes and slow in movement , have the ability to duck or take evasive action , even when a verbal warning just precedes the moment of impact. Therefore , it is true to say that the committee members' failure to carry out a formal risk assessment led to a failure to warn and take preventative action . Consequently , they are all personally liable for the £300,000 damages I award to the plaintiff.
The primary function of all sporting clubs , including bridge clubs , is to develop policies which sustain the long term financial future of the club. Since the decision in Phee v Gordon was ignored , the club took no action at all to safeguard members' health and safety, and therefore has only itself to blame for being sued. The size of the damages involved in head injury cases are always six-figure sums ,  which many small clubs may not be able to sustain. This of course will ultimately result in either the financial ruin of the club, or significant liabilities imposed on its members.