Wells v Full Moon Events Ltd (t/a Dave Thorpe Honda Off-Road Centre) & Anor

A participant in a hazardous sporting activity generally accepts risks inherent in the activity and risks which are obvious to an adult exercising informed judgment. A duty to take reasonable care remains in relation to risks created by the organiser’s activities which are not obvious. The duty does not ordinarily require an organiser of an off-road motorcycle event to identify every natural hazard, warn experienced participants about obvious concealed features of muddy terrain, or prescribe how they must negotiate each obstacle. The court must balance the likelihood and seriousness of injury, the social value of the activity and the cost or practicality of precautions. A warning cannot constitute a breach where the participant already knew of the relevant risk and it would not have altered his conduct.

The claimant suffered catastrophic injuries during an organised off-road motorcycle event operated by the second defendant. He alleged that his motorcycle struck an object concealed beneath muddy water on a public byway, causing him to lose control, and that the defendant had negligently failed to inspect and risk-assess the route or warn participants about concealed obstacles.

The defendant admitted a duty to organise the event with due regard to participants’ safety, but denied breach and causation. The court first considered whether the claimant had proved that a sufficiently large concealed object caused the accident. It then considered, in the alternative, the extent of the duty owed in relation to an inherent and obvious risk.

1. Cause of accident. The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he struck an object concealed beneath the water which was large enough to precipitate his fall. The more probable explanation was that he struck rocks at the eastern side of the puddle through an error in negotiating it.
2. Accepted and obvious risks. The claimant’s signed declaration, his evidence and his experience established that he accepted the inherent risks of off-road motorcycling. It was obvious to an adult motorcyclist that muddy water might conceal objects. The claimant also accepted that he knew of that possibility and did not require a warning.
3. Extent of duty. Applying the principles in Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2004] 1 AC 46, and the reasoning adopted in Clarke v Kerwin t/a Dirtbikeaction [2018] 4 WLUK 497, the defendant’s duty extended to risks posed by its activities which were not obvious. It did not require a detailed risk assessment of the natural track or a warning about an inherent and obvious concealed-object risk.
4. The event’s recreational and sporting value was relevant when balancing the risk, the seriousness of possible injury and the practicality and effect of preventative measures. Requiring the organiser to identify and guard against every natural hazard, or to instruct experienced riders how to negotiate ordinary off-road terrain, would materially negate the Enduro experience.
5. Even if a warning had been required and omitted, it would not have assisted the claimant because he already knew of the relevant risk and made his own assessment of how to negotiate the puddle. The defendant had organised the event with due regard to his safety.

The claim therefore failed and judgment was entered for the defendant.