Green v Sunset & Vine Productions Ltd & Ors (Rev 1)

A defendant may owe a duty to take reasonable care when placing equipment near a motor-racing circuit, particularly where vehicles may foreseeably overrun the area. Breach does not establish liability unless the breach caused the injury. Where the equipment’s presence made only a minor contribution to an accident, but its method of installation played no causal part, the installation breach cannot found liability. The court also confirmed that an unforeseeable mechanism or extent of injury does not necessarily make damage too remote where a known source of danger caused the injury. However, the causal link between the negligent act and the injury remains essential.

The claimant, an experienced historic racing driver, was seriously injured when his Maserati left the track at Woodcote Corner during the Goodwood Revival meeting. A kerb camera installed by Sunset & Vine on the grass inside the corner was struck by the car’s right-hand wheels. The claimant alleged that Sunset & Vine, Goodwood Road Racing Company Ltd and the British Automobile Racing Club Ltd had negligently positioned, installed and approved the camera, and had failed to warn drivers of it.

The central issues were whether the camera or its installation caused the accident, whether any defendant was negligent, whether any negligence was causative, and whether the claimant was contributorily negligent.

1. Causation and primary responsibility. The car probably struck the camera with both right-hand wheels, but the camera’s effect was modest. The principal causes were the claimant’s speed, his unusually tight line while attempting to overtake, and the unsettling effect of crossing back over the kerb. His driving was the principal cause of the accident.
2. Negligence of Sunset & Vine. A reasonably competent television production company should obtain appropriate official approval before placing equipment near a racing circuit where cars may overrun it. Sunset & Vine was negligent in installing the camera without the required approval and in failing to obtain approval for the precise method of installation. It was also negligent, if responsible for the installation method, not to ensure that the cable was secured after the camera had been displaced.
3. No causative breach. The camera’s location would have been approved by the relevant authorities. The evidence did not establish that securing the camera or cable differently would have altered the claimant’s line, the car’s behaviour or the accident. The installation breach therefore caused no part of the injury. Sunset & Vine was not liable.
4. Goodwood and BARC. Goodwood owed the claimant the duty imposed by section 2(2) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. BARC was negligent in failing to investigate the camera’s presence and the absence of approval after learning that cars had displaced it. Neither defendant’s negligence caused or contributed to the accident. The claims against Goodwood and BARC were dismissed.
5. Remoteness. Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] IWLR 1082 illustrates that an unforeseeable manner or extent of injury does not necessarily prevent recovery where a known source of danger caused the injury. It does not dispense with the requirement that the defendant’s negligence caused the injury. On the facts found, the absence of fixing was not the causal source of the accident.
6. Contributory negligence. It was unnecessary to decide the issue because no defendant was liable. Had liability been established, the claimant would have been assessed as 80 per cent responsible.
7. Disposition. The claim was dismissed.