Corbett v Cumbria Kart Racing Club & Ors

In motor-sport negligence claims, the standard of care is assessed by the Bolam approach, applied to reasonably competent organisers and occupiers. The relevant risk is the additional risk of injury beyond risks inherent in the sport. It is unnecessary to foresee the precise sequence of events if an accident of the relevant kind was reasonably foreseeable. Where a vehicle may leave a circuit at speed and reach an obstacle, those responsible must assess the resulting risk and take reasonable precautions. They cannot rely solely on a governing body’s licence or on the absence of previous identical accidents. If an ambulance is placed behind an inadequate barrier, the resulting risk may constitute a breach of duty. A participant’s agreement that a venue is acceptable does not amount to consent to, or contributory negligence in relation to, an unnecessary and unacceptable risk created by inadequate safety arrangements.

The claimant suffered a serious brain injury when a motorcycle and sidecar outfit left the Rowrah Stadium circuit during an amateur event and collided with an ambulance positioned behind two lines of tyres. He brought claims against the circuit owner and the event organiser in negligence and under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. The claim against the motor-sports association was discontinued.

The trial was confined to causation and liability. The central issues were whether the accident and the relevant collision risk were foreseeable, whether the ambulance and tyre barrier created an unreasonable risk, whether the defendants had breached their duties, and whether the claimant was contributorily negligent.

1. Liability. Judgment was entered against both remaining defendants for 90% of the damages to be assessed.
2. The applicable standard in motor-sport cases was the Bolam standard, assessed by reference to reasonably competent occupiers and organisers of the relevant events. The question was whether the arrangements exposed participants to an unnecessary additional risk of injury, not whether a safer arrangement could retrospectively be devised. The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 added no materially different standard.
3. It was reasonably foreseeable that vehicles, including sidecar outfits, might leave the track at the relevant bend and travel towards the tyre barrier. The defendants did not need to foresee the precise cause of the loss of control or the exact concatenation of events. The absence of a previous identical accident did not negate foreseeability, particularly where the defendants’ pleaded case itself accepted that a vehicle leaving the track at speed would probably collide with the barrier.
4. Once the ambulance was placed immediately behind the barrier, the defendants had to assess the risk that an outfit would reach it at significant speed. Their duty required either not placing the ambulance there or taking reasonable care to ensure that the barrier was adequate to prevent a collision. The tyre barrier was factually inadequate. Mere visual assessment, reliance on motor-sport licences, and the absence of a previous similar incident were insufficient. The defendants’ breaches caused the claimant’s injury.
5. The claimant’s head injury was caused, on the balance of probabilities, by impact with hard structures in the ambulance rather than deceleration through the tyre barrier. The immediate departure from the circuit resulted from the passenger’s position, for which the claimant was not vicariously responsible. A loose seat justified only a small contribution to the accident. Contributory negligence was assessed at 10%, principally because the seat had not been tightened sufficiently before the race.
6. The claimant’s signing-on acknowledgment did not establish volenti or contributory negligence. He was entitled to assume that those responsible for circuit safety had taken reasonable care to provide suitable barriers. The ambulance’s position and the inadequate barrier created an unnecessary risk not inherent in motor racing.