all sympathies with the man in question, of course, but it looks like the law has made the correct choice.

A very sad event to happen but the climber should have signed a form stating that he was competent to climb without instruction. If using a climbing wall wasn't at your own risk the costs involved in a session would be astronomical, with many climbing walls being inoperable due to higher insurance costs. I agree that its a victory against compensation culture but then again I havn't been paralysed from the neck down.

Falling 1.45metres whilst bouldering and paralysing himself - is that correct ? If so, the probable risk of severe injury would not have been obvious to me either.

Some more detailed info: A man paralysed after falling from a climbing wall will not receive a penny in compensation following an Appeal Court ruling which some may see as a blow against the "nanny state". Gary Poppleton, who faces life in a wheelchair, claimed he was the a victim of negligence after falling from the wall at the Fort Purbrook centre, at Corsham, near Portsmouth, on February 2, 2002. A "novice" at rock climbing, Mr Poppleton was tackling the centre's climbing wall without ropes - an activity known as "bouldering" - when he fell to the ground, breaking his neck. Mr Poppleton, now 30, of (44) Coriander Drive, Churchdown, Gloucestershire, sued the Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee - the charity which runs the centre - for millions of pounds in compensation. At the High Court in July last year, Judge Richard Foster ruled that Mr Poppleton had attempted a "dangerous and foolhardy" jumping manoeuvre on the climbing wall, far beyond his capabilities, and was three-quarters to blame for his own misfortune. But he said he could claim compensation on the basis that the centre was 25% to blame, meaning he was still entitled to substantial damages, possibly running to seven figures. The judge made his finding on the basis that the centre should have warned Mr Poppleton that thick safety matting on the floor didn't necessarily make the climbing wall safe. However today, at London's Court of Appeal, Lord Justice May, sitting with Lord Justice Richards and Sir Paul Kennedy, said Mr Poppleton was entirely to blame for the tragedy. "It is to my mind quite obvious that no amount of matting will avoid absolutely the risk of possibly severe injury from an awkward fall and that the possibility of an awkward fall is an obvious and inherent risk of this kind of climbing," said the judge. "Mr Poppleton's evidence was that he did not think it was that risky, indicating he knew there was a risk." Later in his judgement, Lord Justice May added: "There being inherent and obvious risks in the activity which Mr Poppleton was voluntarily undertaking, the law did not require the trustees to prevent him from undertaking it, nor to train him or supervise him while he did it, or see that others did so. "If the law required training or supervision in this case, it would equally be required for a multitude of other commonplace leisure activities which nevertheless carry with them a degree of obvious inherent risk - as for instance bathing in the sea." The judge also said that it "made no difference" that Mr Poppleton had been charged for using the climbing wall, and said that it was "plainly obvious" there was some risk of falling from the wall. And he dismissed a cross appeal brought by Mr Poppleton's legal team, who had argued that a finding of just 25% negligence on the part of the centre was not enough, as the then 25-year-old had been given no instruction or warning about safe use of the facility, and had not been asked about his abilities as a climber. At an April hearing, the charity's counsel, Mr William Norris QC, argued that to find the trustees liable for Mr Poppleton's injuries "would be over-regulation and what is now referred to daily as the nanny state". Mr Norris said that it was "fundamentally absurd" to describe the crash mat as a "hidden or latent danger" which had lured Mr Poppleton into a false sense of security. He added: "Mr Poppleton, as an adult, voluntarily accepted the risk of falling and must, like any adult, be taken to have recognised the risk - however remote that may have been - that he would suffer serious injury, even falling onto a soft surface. "There was no sound basis upon which the judge was entitled to find that, even had some warning been given, it would have made the slightest difference...There should be no duty to explain the obvious to a consenting adult. "There is a limit to the information and advice that you need to volunteer to an adult who does not ask for any. He was an adult, entirely free to make his own choices. He also knew perfectly well, when he chose to jump, that there was a risk of falling...He recognised the risk and chose to take it." Mr Poppleton - who had worked for Bass brewery since he was 19 and was doing well as a "trouble shooter" taking over troublesome kitchens at pubs all over the country - had gone to the activity centre with a group of friends. The keen cyclist, who worked out regularly with weights, was "bouldering" on the climbing wall when he fell as he attempted a challenging jump towards a grab bar, somersaulting in the air and landing on his head.