OBA
PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR POLICIES
The Ontario Badminton Association has revised its policy regarding the use of protective eyewear, as a result of discussions at the Annual General Meeting in June 2006.
The following resolution was passed at this meeting.
Effective
September 1, 2006 all Junior players in Ontario must wear protective eyewear
meeting the ASTM F803 Standard where there are more than two players on the
same court at all OBA, District or affiliated club activities.
This will supersede policies (1) and (2) below.
The OBA will be disseminating this policy as widely as possible, so that all affiliated clubs will be aware of it. Enforcing this policy will be the responsibility of the person in charge of the tournament, camp, clinic, District or club function.
BACKGROUND
The Ontario Badminton Association revised its policy regarding the use of eye protectors as a result of discussions at the Annual General Meeting in June 2005 and the Fall General Meeting in September 2005.
As a
result, the OBA’s
policy, THE WEARING OF POLYCARBONATE LENSES IN A FRAME
DESIGNED FOR SPORT IS STRONGLY
RECOMMENDED.
has been replaced by the following.
1)
THE USE OF PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR (ASTM F803) FOR DOUBLES PLAY IN ALL
OBA-SANCTIONED EVENTS IS MANDATORY FOR ALL JUNIOR PLAYERS BORN IN 1992 OR
LATER. (June 5, 2005)
2)
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2006, THE USE OF PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR (ASTM F803) FOR
DOUBLES PLAY IN ALL OBA-SANCTIONED EVENTS IS MANDATORY FOR ALL JUNIOR PLAYERS
BORN IN 1987 OR LATER. (September 24,
2005)
3) THE
The resolution in support of the third policy was passed
with all in favour, save for one abstention.
The Preamble to this resolution provided reasons to
re-emphasize the use of eye protectors and to specifically require that the eye
protectors meet the ASTM F803 impact standard.
It stated:
"Whereas the impact of shuttlecocks and badminton racquets with the eye has resulted in severe eye injuries, including, in very rare cases, the permanent loss of sight in the affected eye of badminton players; and
the Canadian Ophthalmological Society recommends the use of eye protectors by badminton players; and
the use of appropriate eye protectors has been found to reduce the risk of significant eye injury by at least 90%, when fitted properly; and
the incidence of eye injuries to badminton players has been reported to be greater than that in squash and racquetball players and that this has been attributed to the increased use of eye protectors by players in these sports; and
the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM F803) "Standard Specifications for Eye Protectors for Selective Sports" indicates that Eye Protectors that provide eye protection against the impact of a squash ball will provide similar protection against the impact of shuttlecocks and badminton racquets; and
the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Ophthalmology Policy Statement, "Protective Eyewear for Young Athletes (2004): indicates: "streetwear (fashion) spectacles that conform to the requirements of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Z80.3.11, and safety eyewear that conforms to the requirements of ANSI standard Z87.1,12 which is mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for industrial and educational safety eyewear, are not satisfactory for eye-injury risk sports" because streetwear frames are often fragile and have poor lens retention properties and standard Z87.1,12 is not designed to test for the impact of projectiles and racquets used in racquet sports; and
the Ontario Badminton Association has a duty to advise its members and badminton players at large (and their parents) of avoidable risks associated with the sport and the means to mitigate these risks.
IMPLICATIONS OF THESE
POLICIES FOR BADMINTON CLUBS
Brian Wynn, a lawyer with the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP
in
His review, dated September 22, 2005, was presented to the OBA at the Fall
General meeting in
“What about not implementing the regulation?
Given the available information and the decisions made in other jurisdictions, it is highly unlikely that a court would consider a decision to forego the regulation as meeting the standard of care. It is true that the OBA must consider the repercussions of the decision on other associations or entities (such as recreation departments and school boards, for example) and the cost it will impose on badminton participants.
In addition, it may be argued that it will be difficult, perhaps costly, to supervise the rule on-court. However the court will be balancing these economic or logistical considerations against safety concerns: the latter will likely prevail.
Is there increased liability from implementing the regulation?
Given the answer to the first query, there is no “increased liability”. However, there is an additional duty thrust upon the OBA, organizers, clubs and officials: a duty to patrol and enforce. After implementation, failure to enforce the regulation would make it easier for a plaintiff to establish negligence.
Is there a problem with gradual implementation?
The introduction of the regulation at the under-12 level may create some problems in defending a lawsuit by an older participant. It is hard to create a meaningful distinction between the danger to a 12-year old and the danger to an 18-year old. However, once the regulation applies to older ages, say 19+, it does become more arguable that the participant knew or ought to have known about potential hazard. In the presence of distinct warnings and the execution of waivers the defense of voluntary assumption of risk may carry more weight where the plaintiff is an older juvenile or adult.
Will organizers of non-sanctioned tournaments face liability?
The presence of the OBA regulation will definitely make it hard for an organizer to differentiate a non-sanctioned tournament from a sanctioned tournament. The danger appears to be the same in both cases. In fact, the participants will often be the same.
Will a badminton club face liability?
As in the last situation, it is hard to differentiate regular court play at the club level from tournament play. Again, the participants will often be the same. It could be argued further that the danger facing the unskilled casual player may be even higher.
ROLE OF WAIVERS
Where imminent liability risk can be transferred, a waiver form may be useful. These forms are common in sports situations. Without providing an in-depth examination of the topic, I submit the following observations:
A waiver will “hold up in court” where the organizer can demonstrate that the risks were fully and clearly explained to the participants, where the participant was not rushed or coerced when signing and where the form is not confusing.
A waiver should enumerate the risks. For badminton competitors these would include eye injury, as well as leg, foot/ankle and back injuries.
A waiver signed by a minor (or that person’s parent/guardian) may not be enforceable.
Waivers should be collected, inspected and retained as part of a well-regimented, standardized operating procedure. failure to monitor the process once implemented, might impair the reliability of this device and affect liability”.
Bob Green
Secretary ODBA
October 6, 2005.
Revised June 9, 2006.
rmg0450@hotmail.com
