Oxegen Festival “Slip and Fall” Claim dismissed

In the High Court case of Mark Ponisi v MCD Productions Limited (Rec No 2009/4474P) the plaintiff claimed compensation in respect of personal injuries which he sustained when attending the Oxegen Musical Festival at Punchestown, Co. Kildare on the 7th July 2007. He maintained that he sustained his injuries due to the negligence and breach of duty of the defendant, the company which organised and managed the event.

His Claim was dismissed. Does this mean that all such Musical Festival Claims will be dismissed in the future?

The Claim was dismissed by Ms Justice Irvine in her Decision delivered on the 16th October 2014.This was a typical “slip and fall” Claim. The plaintiff broke his ankle at approximately 7pm when standing in arena 1, the area in which the main stage for the festival was located; although not in the area immediately in front of the stage.

 
The Facts

The Kings of Leon were on stage at the time. It was squelchy underfoot and there wasn’t much grass to be seen. The plaintiff and his friend were standing in what the plaintiff described as a muddy or boggy area. The plaintiff stated that they had listened to no more than two songs when he was suddenly and without any warning knocked from behind with such force that he fell forward into the mud. Thereafter, he believed he was kicked and trampled upon by whoever had knocked him down. He felt a searing pain in his left ankle and as he tried to get up, his right foot came free readily enough. However, his left boot remained stuck in the mud.

 
Mr. Culleton, the plaintiff`s Consulting Engineer, was of the opinion that, having regard to the inclement weather in the weeks running up to this event, the management company had taken insufficient steps to protect the safety of the 80,000 or so fans who were attending the event at a cost of €200 a head. A mesh floor, such as that which had been provided at the Leonard Cohen concert which had taken place at Kilmainham in Dublin, should have been laid over the festival site. Further, he was of the opinion that, having regard to the underfoot conditions, the defendant had taken insufficient steps to identify particularly hazardous areas and improve the quality of the ground conditions. He told the court that vulnerable areas should have been made safe and that this could have been achieved by rolling in crushed stone or applying other biodegradable products to areas which had broken down.

 
The Defendant’s Evidence
Mr. Michael Slattery, the principal of Slattery and Associates, Fire, Safety and Security Experts, whose firm had been involved in planning the annual Oxygen Festival since 2004, stated that they had daily meetings in the preceding ten days. Mr. Slattery told the court that vulnerable areas were

identified and plans put in place to deal with them. The location where the plaintiff was injured was not such an area and in general, the drainage on the site was good. Straw and bark mulch was on hand to put down in any areas which were or might become hazardous. As for arena 1, he had walked this area with three members of his safety team in the hours before it was opened to the public for the first time at 12 noon on the Saturday. He considered that the arena was safe for the events that were due to take place that afternoon and evening. Thereafter, he remained in constant communication by radio with the safety team staff to deal with any evolving problems. He was not made aware of any particular difficulties with the surface of the arena prior to the plaintiffs fall.
It was not practical or safe to cover the entirety of the ground area of arena 1, which was 40,000sqm, with the type of matting which had been advised by Mr. Culleton. There was a gradient running from left to right as one looked at the stage and to cover it with matting would have created an alternative hazard for patrons i.e. that of potentially slipping on it.

 
Decision

The judge was satisfied that the ground conditions were muddy and slippery. However, she did not accept that the overall condition of the ground surface was “disgraceful” as alleged. The plaintiff had been able and willing to walk around the site to get food and drink and he and his friend had managed to walk about carrying their respective pints without any apparent difficulties. Neither mentioned having slipped or lost their footing in the hours leading up to the injury. She was also satisfied, having regard to the level of staffing in arena 1, that if any significant area of ground had become particularly hazardous that this would have been noticed and dealt with by the staff, having regard to all of the measures that had been put in place to cater to such an occurrence.
She was also satisfied that, for reasons which were unknown to himself and to his friend the Plaintiff was suddenly and with force knocked to the ground from behind by one or maybe more than one other festival goer who then proceeded to barge over him and trample upon him. However the evidence established that they were standing in an area a long way back from the stage which was not particularly crowded. She did not accept that the area was hazardous.

 
Causation
While the plaintiff`s boot was retained in the ground at the time he was mowed down the court heard no medical evidence as to the biomechanics of the plaintiffs injury such that would allow it conclude as a probability that, but for the retention of the plaintiff`s left boot in the mud, he would have avoided injury altogether or sustained a lesser type of injury.

 
liability
The  judge stated that, even if she was satisfied that the plaintiff`s injuries were probably caused due to the fact that his boot was caught in mud as he was knocked over, she was not satisfied that the plaintiff had established negligence as against the defendant. The obligation on the defendant was not that of an insurer; it was to take reasonable care for the safety of the plaintiff in all of the circumstances. She was satisfied that the defendant did all that could be reasonably expected of it both prior to and during the currency of the festival to protect those attending from the risk of injury due to poor ground conditions generated by weather conditions in the weeks leading up to the event. In particular, she was satisfied that in planning for the event, which was carried out in association with a number of authorities, the defendant took all reasonable care to ensure that the surface of the venue would be as safe as was reasonably practicable for festival goers.
The simple fact of the matter was that the plaintiff sustained his injuries as a result of some recklessly robust behaviour on the part of one or more concert goers who for some reason suddenly and without any warning knocked him to the ground and proceeded to trample over him and causing him to be kicked in the process.

 
Ms Justice Irvine did not believe that the defendants could be considered to have been negligent merely because there may have been some area in arena 1 at 7pm on 7th July, 2007, which had a few inches of mud present and with which patrons should, in all normal circumstances, be expected to be able to cope satisfactory.

 
Conclusion
Had this accident occurred in the area immediately before the stage where crowd surges could have been anticipated by the defendant and had there not been more stringent precautions taken by the defendant at that location, it would appear that the defendant would have been found liable. This accident however occurred a good distance back from the stage.

 
Ms Justice Irvine stated it was regrettable that the plaintiff sustained a serious ankle injury at this particular festival. However, she commented that unfortunately it was cases such as this one which put at risk the holding of the type of large outdoor events which give so much pleasure to so many people. Organisers of these events can only do what is reasonable in order to provide for the safety of those who attend. It was simply not possible to expect a company seeking to organise festival such as Oxygen, against a backdrop of poor weather conditions, to provide a site that will remain mud free for 80,000 people over a weekend against a backdrop of six weeks of bad weather.