A legal insight article has outlined how trip hazard claims in playgrounds can be defended, using a previous UK case as an example. The discussion centres on an incident where a visitor at a playground, attending with her husband and grandchildren, tripped while walking past a swing set towards her grandson.
The claimant alleged the fall was caused by a “significant difference” in ground level between a re-laid wet-pour surface and adjacent concrete. She fell headfirst into perimeter railings, sustaining a forehead laceration that resulted in a scar.
The playground had previously been subject to an arson attack in 2021, requiring the wet-pour surface around the swing set to be replaced. The local authority had subcontracted the works to a reputable independent contractor.
In the referenced case, the defence argued the surface formed a gradual slope rather than a hazardous defect. Inspection records had not identified any issues, and the site was considered compliant with relevant standards. Following a site visit, the court found the level difference was minor, visible, and did not present a danger, and the claim was dismissed.
