Shane Byrne v Motorsport Vision Racing Limited & Ors

Occupiers and organisers of dangerous sporting activities must take reasonable steps to protect participants from foreseeable risks of serious injury. A governing or licensing body may owe a common-law duty where it retains control over licensing, inspection and safety requirements and its decisions have a sufficiently close relationship with participants’ safety.

In assessing breach, the court applies the standard of practice recognised by a competent, reasonable and responsible body of skilled practitioners, while rejecting a practice that cannot be logically supported. Experienced participants do not automatically accept risks created by inadequate safety measures. Where a foreseeable motorcycle trajectory makes collision with a hard barrier possible, reasonable precautions may require additional energy-absorbing protection.

The claimant, a professional motorcycle racer, was seriously injured during an official British Superbike Championship test day at Snetterton. His motorcycle left the track at Turn 3 after an unexpected rear-wheel movement and collided with a barrier consisting of an Armco barrier and a permanent Type D tyre wall.

He brought claims in negligence and under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 against the event organiser, the circuit owner and the governing and licensing body. The issues included occupier status, the existence and scope of duties of care, willing acceptance of risk, breach in the selection of protective devices, causation and contributory negligence.

1. Occupier status and duties. The event organiser and circuit owner were occupiers. The governing and licensing body was not an occupier, but owed a common-law duty because it retained responsibility for licensing, track inspections, risk assessments and safety requirements. Its activities created sufficient proximity, and it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty to take reasonable steps to protect competitors from foreseeable serious injury.
2. Volenti and acceptance of risk. The claimant had not willingly accepted the risk of collision with the barrier as designed or accepted that it provided sufficient protection. The alleged signing-on form was not proved. In any event, under sections 1(3)(b) and 2(3) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, agreement to or awareness of a notice restricting liability for negligence did not itself establish voluntary acceptance of the risk.
3. Standard and breach. Applying Bolam v Friern Hospital and Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority, the court assessed whether the defendants acted in accordance with a responsible body of skilled practitioners and whether the asserted practice was logically supportable. The defendants had failed proactively to assess the foreseeable scenario in which a rider lost control while braking, entered the grass at substantial speed and reached the barrier before stopping. Type A Additional Protective Devices were reasonably required in front of the Type D barrier.
4. Causation and contributory negligence. The claimant’s account was accepted. The incident was not caused by rider error and he was not contributorily negligent. The barrier impact materially caused his serious injuries. On the balance of probabilities, Type A protection would have prevented those injuries; the suggested risk of pocketing was unsubstantiated.
5. Disposition. Each defendant was liable for the claimant’s injuries. Quantum was to be dealt with separately.