Risk and Lifestyle Sports: The Case of Bouldering

Abstract

The recent case of Maylin v Dacorum Sports Trust [2017] EWHC 378 (QB) is the latest example of a claim being made for damages suffered whilst participating in bouldering, a form of low-level climbing. Whilst interesting in its own right in terms of how the courts apply legal principles to the area, it also sheds light on approaches to lifestyle sports more generally and the place of risk within play. This Intervention is essentially a case note of Maylin, but viewed, in part, through the lens of recent interdisciplinary work the authors have undertaken into parkour.

Indoor Bouldering—A Prospective Injury Evaluation

“…2 The majority of boulder problems have a height of 2.5 to 5 m, and to reduce the risk of injury from falls from this height, it is common to use composite foam safety mats, either portable for outdoor utilization or permanently installed indoors. 2,7 Most boulderers use special climbing shoes to enable them to stand on small edges and use chalk to absorb moisture and prevent sweaty hands. [8][9][10][11] Climbing shoes have a special design and feature a varying degree of downturn (ie, a concavely shaped sole that places more pressure on the toes, which then are forced into a flexed position) and an asymmetric design that maximizes pressure on the hallux.…”