Posted By Phil Grace Joe, Not sure if I can help that much but here goes.... Tricky area that is subject to change - still developing. It centres largely on the volenti argument. You may be aware of Tomlinson (dived into open water and broke neck) which was decided in favour of local authority after going to CoA. In brief it was found that the risks were obvious and claimant should have taken care for his own safety. More recently there is Poppleton (fell from top of indoor climbing wall when trying to "jump" to another point, a building beam) Here the case was decided in favour of claimant. But is a bit of a perverse judgment since it was held that he should have been told that the mats (300mm thick and deemed to be adequate) wouldn't prevent injury if he fell...!!! Guy actually fell several metres and judge described his decision to make the jump as "a foolhardy, dangerous and risky" manoeuvre....! So, there may not be a case that exactly meets your needs/circumstances. Certainly it is my view that those who operate such establishments have a clear duty to provide warning and instruction about both correct procedures and the manner in which activity should be undertaken. The also need to provide safety equipment as necessary e.g. ropes on a climbing wall. One aspect that is not yet clear from case law is the extent of the duty to establish persons level of skill/expertise before allowing them to participate e.g. someone rolls up for ski slope or white water slalom and claims to have expertise. Easier for some sports where level of training/skill is "proven" by cards/certificates e.g. diving Hope this helps - cases should come up if you Google them. Get in touch if you want full citation or more info. Phil