Darren Eaton v The Auto-Cycle Union Limited (t/a ACU) & Ors

In a sports-negligence claim, the duty is to take reasonable care not to expose participants to risks beyond those inherent in the sport. Liability is confined to losses falling within the scope of the particular duty breached. A defendant is not liable merely because the claimant would have avoided the accident if the relevant activity had been cancelled, where the injury was not caused by the risk which made cancellation appropriate. Breach and causation must therefore be analysed by reference to the specific hazard created by the breach. On the evidence, failure to bind tyres breached the duty, but did not cause or exacerbate the claimant’s injuries; reintroducing straw bales would not have addressed that risk and would probably have made the barrier less safe.

The claimant, an experienced motorcycle racer, suffered life-changing spinal injuries when he collided with a tyre barrier at the Three Sisters Race Circuit during a championship race. He sued the governing body, circuit operator, race organiser and relevant officials, alleging negligence and breach of section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

The claim principally alleged that straw bales should have remained, or been reinstated, in front of the tyre wall. The claimant also relied on unbanded tyres, inadequate run-off and the absence of recticel or similar barriers. The court determined preliminary issues of breach of duty and causation.

1. Duty. The defendants owed a duty to take such reasonable care as was necessary not to expose a participant to a risk over and above that inherent in motorcycle racing.
2. Breach. The only relevant breach was the failure to comply with the requirement that the tyres forming the barrier be bound together. That requirement addressed the risk of loose tyres being displaced onto the track. It did not concern the yielding quality of the barrier on impact.
3. Straw bales. The removal of the straw bales was justified. The evidence showed that straw bales were stiffer than the tyre wall and would probably have made the barrier less safe. Reintroducing them would not have been a rational response to the risk created by unbound tyres. Criticisms concerning recticel barriers and the length of the run-off were unsupported.
4. Causation and scope of duty. Applying the principle illustrated by South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd [1997] AC 19, and confirmed beyond commercial economic-loss cases in Meadows v Khan [2022] AC 852, liability depends on whether the loss fell within the risk created by the breach. The claimant’s injury was not within the risk created by the failure to bind the tyres. The fact that cancellation of the race would have prevented the accident did not establish causation.
5. Hypothetical causation. In any event, a barrier of straw bales positioned to present the same barrier as the tyres would probably have produced similar injuries. The height of the bales above the tyre wall was accidental rather than a safety requirement.
6. Outcome. The claim failed.