Benjamin Hetherington (by his father and litigation friend Gary Hetherington) v Raymond Fell & Anor

A voluntary sporting organisation may owe participants a duty of care when assessing risks created by negligent third-party road users. The duty is to take reasonable care to identify material hazards, assess their risks, implement reasonable mitigation within the organisation’s power, communicate the assessment clearly, and review it after significant changes or events.

The standard is that of a reasonably competent and reasonably informed volunteer. The court must take account of the organisation’s lack of control over the highway, the nature and level of risk, the social value of the activity, the responsible approach taken, and the risk that excessive requirements would discourage desirable voluntary activity. A risk assessment need not classify every junction as high risk merely because drivers may break the law.

The claimant was seriously injured when a motorist turned across his path during a cycling time trial organised by Ferryhill Wheelers Cycling Club. The motorist’s insurer admitted full liability for the collision. The remaining Part 20 claim concerned contribution or indemnity against the Club, based on alleged failures to assess the course, provide adequate signs and deploy sufficient marshals.

The central issues were whether the Club owed the claimant a duty of care in relation to risks created by third-party drivers, the scope and standard of that duty, whether the Club’s risk assessment and precautions were inadequate, and whether any breach caused the accident.

1. Duty of care. The Club owed riders a duty of care when carrying out risk assessments concerning the possibility that negligent third-party drivers might encounter the time trial. The relationship involved proximity and foreseeable harm, and it was fair, just and reasonable to recognise the duty. The Club’s lack of control over the public highway informed the scope of the duty.
2. Scope and standard. The duty required reasonable care to identify material hazards, assess their level of risk, identify reasonable mitigation within the Club’s power, communicate the assessment clearly so that control measures were implemented, and review the assessment after significant events or changes. The standard was that of a reasonably competent and reasonably informed volunteer.
3. Relevant considerations. The court took account of the Club’s voluntary status, the social value of cycling, the responsible approach demonstrated by the organisers, the inherent risks of cycling, and the danger that an excessive standard would deter volunteers or prevent desirable activities. The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 and Compensation Act 2006 reinforced those considerations.
4. Application. The Club had assessed the Butterwick Road junction. Its methodology reasonably considered traffic flow, layout, visibility, geography, road surface and rights of way. The low-risk classification was suitable and sufficient. A previous accident, low sun and the possibility of driver error did not require the junction to be treated as high risk or require a marshal at every location. The additional warning sign was not necessary to discharge the duty, but was a precautionary measure.
5. The on-the-day assessment was carried out. Failure to complete a form recording that no change was required was not a breach. Minor recording errors in the generic assessment were immaterial. The sign’s partly obscured lettering and height did not fall below the applicable standard.
6. Any alleged failure to provide a larger or earlier sign, or a marshal at the junction, would not have caused the accident. The motorist had failed to notice multiple signs, marshals and highway warnings. The Part 20 claim against the Club was dismissed.

First-instance decision. The judgment records that Deputy Master Yoxall ordered liability to be tried as a preliminary issue on 20 February 2024. The Part 20 claim against the Club was dismissed.