Tort Law

Hall v. Brooklands Auto-Racing Club

[1933] 1 KB 205

Facts

• Brooklands Auto-Racing Club operated a motor-racing track.
• Hall attended a race as a paying spectator.
• The spectators stood or sat in an area separated from the track by protective railings.
• During the race, two competing cars came into contact.
• One of the vehicles was thrown over or through the barrier into the spectator area.
• Hall was struck and seriously injured.
• The accident was unprecedented at the track.
• The club had followed the accepted safety arrangements ordinarily used for motor racing at the time.
• There was no proof that:
o the track was defectively designed;
o the barrier was maintained carelessly;
o the drivers were incompetent; or
o the club had ignored a known history of cars entering the spectator area.
• Hall sued the club in negligence.
• The club argued that it had taken reasonable precautions and that spectators accepted the ordinary risks inherent in motor racing.

• Whether the club breached its duty to provide reasonably safe viewing arrangements.
• Whether the accident was sufficiently foreseeable to require additional precautions.
• Whether a spectator consents to the risks inherent in a dangerous sport.

• Organisers of sporting events owe spectators a duty to take reasonable care.
• They are not insurers guaranteeing complete safety.
• A spectator ordinarily accepts the normal and inherent risks of a sport that remain after the organiser has exercised reasonable care.
• Consent does not extend to:
o negligent organisation;
o defective premises;
o careless failure to adopt established precautions; or
o risks outside the ordinary character of the event.
• Breach depends upon what a reasonable organiser should have foreseen and prevented at the time.
• The mere occurrence of an exceptional accident does not prove negligence.

• Motor racing inevitably involves high speed and the possibility of collisions.
• A reasonable spectator would understand that some danger remains despite barriers and supervision.
• The club had installed protective railings and adopted precautions consistent with established racing practice.
• There was no previous accident indicating that cars were likely to be thrown into the particular spectator area.
• The precise sequence was so exceptional that the club could not reasonably have been expected to design against it.
• The law did not require the elimination of every conceivable risk, because doing so might make the sport impossible.
• Hall accepted the residual ordinary risk of watching motor racing when reasonable safeguards were already present.
• However, the decision did not create a general immunity for sports organisers.
• Liability would have arisen if the club had knowingly used an unsafe barrier, ignored earlier similar incidents or placed spectators in an obviously dangerous position.
• On the evidence, the injury resulted from the inherent and unprecedented danger of the sport rather than negligent management.

• The Court of Appeal held that Brooklands Auto-Racing Club was not liable.
• The club had taken reasonable precautions according to the knowledge and standards of the time.
• The accident was unprecedented and not reasonably foreseeable in the form in which it occurred.
• Hall had accepted the ordinary risks inherent in attending a properly conducted motor race.
• Use this case for: a spectator accepts inherent sporting risks remaining after reasonable precautions, but does not consent to negligence by the organiser.