One of the latest gameshows to grace our streaming devices is Netflix’s “Squid Game: The Challenge”, based on the popular Netflix series “Squid Game”. The premise of the game is that contestants take part in various challenges, with contestants being eliminated (represented by the ink pads under their t-shirts “exploding”, mimicking the killings from the original TV series) if they fail the challenges. The end goal is to successfully finish all the challenges without being “killed” and reach the prize money of $4.56 million.
Articles published today state that two of the 456 contestants are bringing personal injury claims for injuries sustained while taking part in the gameshow, but what difficulties might they face?
Does Squid Game: The Challenge Owe a Duty of Care?
The Claimants are going to need to establish that there has been a breach of duty, i.e. that they were owed a duty of care by the Defendant and that the care given to them fell short of what would have been reasonable. It should be fairly easy to establish that a duty of care was owed, as the Defendant would need to make sure the contestants were all safe, but how easy will it be to argue that the Defendant didn’t provide sufficient care?
Volenti Non Fit Injuria
A potential defence to personal injury claims, this Latin phrase translates as ‘to one who volunteers, no harm is done’. In other words, by consenting to risk of injury, you might struggle to bring a personal injury claim. So, did the contestants consent?
It wouldn’t be surprising if the Defendant to these claims raises the volenti defence, stating that the Claimants would have known there was a risk of injury in a gameshow that saw contestants “killed off”. However, the Claimants’ counter-argument may be that the injuries they have allegedly suffered could not have been consented to, because they weren’t obvious risks – you may reasonably expect a twisted ankle when you’re running to cross a line before the murderous doll turns around, but could the Claimants reasonably have expected risks of hypothermia and nerve damage? If not, how could they have consented to those risks?
Assuming the Defendant raises this defence, the Claimants’ solicitors will need to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, they could not have consented to the risk of hypothermia and nerve damage, and that the Defendant ought to have realised that the challenges the contestants were facing risked them suffering those injuries. It will be interesting to see how this case pans out.
If you’ve suffered an injury as a result of someone else’s negligence or deliberate act, contact us today to see how we can help you. We’re on your side.