Brand v No Limits Track Days Ltd

An organiser of a motorcycle track day must take reasonable care to protect participants against foreseeable risks beyond those inherent in the sport. The duty is measured against the standard of a reasonably competent organiser and instructor.

Allowing a sighting lap during a fast open session is not automatically negligent. The decision may properly depend on an instructor’s assessment of the rider, the likely speeds and the circumstances of the session. Liability also requires proof that the breach caused the accident in fact and in law. An unforeseeable mechanical failure, sufficient by itself to cause the accident, may constitute an intervening act.

The claimant suffered life-changing injuries in a collision during a motorcycle track day organised by the defendant at Oulton Park. He was supervising a fast open session when he collided with a rider undertaking a sighting lap under the instruction of the defendant’s instructor.

The claimant alleged that the defendant was negligent in permitting the sighting lap to take place during the fast session and that the other rider had deliberately braked. The defendant contended that the sighting-lap arrangement was reasonable and that an unforeseeable mechanical failure caused the other rider’s motorcycle to perform an endo. The issues were the mechanism of the accident, breach of duty and causation.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant failed to establish breach of duty or legal causation.
2. The defendant owed a duty to take reasonable care to protect the claimant against foreseeable risks of injury over and above the inherent risks of track-day motorcycling. The applicable standard was that of a reasonably competent organiser and motorcycle track-day instructor, consistently with Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Co Ltd [2004] PIQR P25.
3. There was no rigid rule prohibiting sighting laps during fast open sessions. Sighting laps could not always be conducted too slowly, since fast riders needed to maintain tyre temperature and speed differences could also create risks in slower groups. It was therefore reasonable to leave the decision to the instructor who would assess the particular rider and circumstances.
4. The defendant’s system was not shown to fall below the required standard. Nor was it proved that the instructor had acted unreasonably in assessing the rider before taking him onto the track.
5. The court accepted that, if breach had been established, factual causation could have been satisfied on a but-for or material-contribution basis. It did not need to decide which test applied. Legal causation nevertheless failed because the accident was caused by an unforeseeable mechanical failure, rather than by the defendant’s breach. The mechanical failure was sufficient in itself to cause the loss and constituted an intervening act.
6. The court considered the qualified dicta of Sedley LJ in Craven v Riches [2001] EWCA Civ 375, concerning avoidable obstruction of faster riders. Those observations did not establish breach on the evidence in this case.