The Leaking Roof, the Moved Cone and the Signed Waiver
A non-profit futsal club rents a public school gym on Saturdays for an adult league. For three weeks a roof panel above the court entrance has leaked in rain. On 8 March the club's volunteer manager phoned the school's facilities office, and on 15 March she sent a text message that has been kept. On 22 March, after 8 mm of rain that morning, a caretaker placed one cone under the drip, but it was moved to the sideline during the warm-up. At 10:40 a 38-year-old player slipped on the wet tiles at the entrance during a substitution, fell and fractured his distal radius; an ambulance was called. He had signed an online registration form stating that the club accepts 'no responsibility for any injury, however caused'. The leader on duty filed no report and told the player's teammate 'he signed the form, so we're covered'. The club insurer requires notification 'as soon as practicable', and the school's hire agreement requires the hirer to report defects in writing. On 24 March the player's lawyer requests all records.
1. Analyse liability: the elements of negligence, where the club stands given the 8 and 15 March communications, and whether the signed waiver bars the claim.
Read the worked answer
Elements.
- Duty: the club as organiser, and the school as occupier, owe participants reasonable care.
- Breach: the standard is what is reasonable given foreseeability and the magnitude of the risk. A leak known since at least 8 March, put in writing on 15 March, and active rain on 22 March makes the hazard plainly foreseeable and cheap to control: close that entrance, use another door, mop and dry, post a person, or postpone. A single cone that anyone can move is not an adequate control for a wet tile floor at a pinch point.
- Causation: factual - but for the wet floor he would not have fallen there; legal - a slip and fracture is exactly the type of harm foreseeable from a wet floor.
- Damage: the fracture and its consequences.
The waiver. It will be construed narrowly against the party that drafted it. In Korea and most comparable jurisdictions, a blanket pre-injury exemption purporting to cover the organiser's own negligence - particularly gross negligence or a breach of a mandatory safety duty - is generally unenforceable or read down to very little. It certainly does not transfer the school's separate liability, and it is not a substitute for managing a known hazard.
Realistic position: the club faces a strong claim, potentially with the school as a co-defendant. The 15 March text is the pivotal document - it proves knowledge and undermines any argument that the hazard was unforeseeable.
2. Set out the actions required in the 72 hours after the incident, including what the leader should and should not have said.
Read the worked answer
Immediately.
- Care for the injured player and hand over to the ambulance crew; record who attended and where he was taken.
- Secure the scene: photograph the wet floor, the cone's actual position, the drip, the entrance; keep the water on the floor undisturbed until photographed.
- Identify witnesses and take short signed statements the same day, while memory is fresh.
Within 24 hours.
- Written incident report: date, time, location, mechanism, injury, actions taken, who was notified. Facts only, no speculation about fault.
- Notify the insurer as soon as practicable, as the policy requires; late notice can void cover.
- Notify the school in writing, as the hire agreement requires, and request the leak be repaired.
- Preserve records: the 8 March call log, the 15 March text, registration and attendance.
What the leader should not have said. 'He signed the form, so we're covered' is legally wrong and ethically worse - it tells an injured participant he is on his own and it will be repeated in evidence. Nor should anyone admit or deny liability, or discuss blame with the player or his family beyond expressing concern and giving contact details for the insurer.
To the player: express concern, confirm the incident has been reported internally and to the insurer, and give a single named contact. Do not debate the waiver with him.
3. Recommend system changes so the same failure cannot recur, covering inspection, escalation and the waiver, and state the ethical duty that outranks the paperwork.
Read the worked answer
Inspection. A written pre-session checklist completed and signed before each session: roof and ceiling, floor and entrance, lighting, exits, goal posts and netting, first-aid kit and AED. Any defect that cannot be fixed before play means the affected area is closed or the session is moved - the checklist is only worth anything if there is a named person with authority to cancel.
Escalation. A defect log with dates, photographs and written notice to the landlord by email, not just a phone call. Repeat the written notice weekly until repaired. If the landlord does not act, the club documents the risk, restricts use, and considers withholding hire fees; continuing to play in a known hazard transfers the risk back onto the club.
Waiver. Redraft it to do the job it can legally do: informed consent, acknowledgement of the inherent risks of futsal, a fitness declaration and a medical-conditions disclosure. Delete any line claiming to exclude liability for the club's own negligence. A waiver that overreaches invites a court to disregard the whole document.
The ethical duty. The participant's safety outranks the insurance position, the entry fee and the fixture list. The test is not 'are we covered' but 'would a reasonable organiser have let people play here today'. On 22 March, with a three-week leak and rain that morning, the honest answer is no.