Hall v Brooklands Auto-Racing Club

Facts of Hall vs Brooklands Auto-Racing Club

In the case of Hall v Brooklands Auto-Racing Club, the defendants owned an auto-racing track designed as an oval with a long straight stretch, over 100 feet wide, bordered by a 6-inch high cement kerb followed by a 4-foot-5-inch-wide grass strip enclosed by a 4-foot-6-inch high iron railing.

Spectators, who paid for admission, could watch the races from designated stands or choose to stand along the outside of the railing, which many did. On the incident day, during a long-distance race, two cars collided on the finishing straight, causing one car to be catapulted into the air, over the kerb and railing and into a group of spectators. This tragic event resulted in the death of two spectators.

This was the first accident of its kind in the over 20-year history of the racing events held at this track. The plaintiff, an injured spectator, sued the defendants for negligence, claiming that the track was not adequately safe for spectators and that there was a lack of sufficient warning about the potential dangers.

Issues Raised

The key issue in Hall v Brooklands Auto-Racing Club was whether the operators of a venue hosting inherently dangerous activities, such as high-speed auto racing, owed a heightened duty of care to protect spectators, compared to venues used for less hazardous events. This involved assessing the adequacy of safety measures and warnings provided to the spectators.

Arguments

In Hall vs Brooklands Auto-Racing Club, the plaintiff, unable to provide a direct account of the accident, relied on expert testimony to argue that the racing track was inherently unsafe for spectators. The experts emphasised that similar incidents could occur in the future, suggesting a systemic risk that had not been adequately mitigated by the track’s management.

The defence countered these claims with a two-pronged argument. Firstly, they asserted that the accident was an extraordinary event, unforeseeable in nature and that there had been no negligence in their safety measures. They argued that the accident’s unprecedented nature demonstrated that the existing precautions were sufficient, highlighting that no similar accidents had occurred during the track’s two-decade history.

Secondly, the defence claimed that the plaintiff had assumed the risk inherent to watching a motor race by purchasing a ticket, a common defence in cases involving sporting events. This voluntary assumption of risk, they argued, absolved them of liability as the spectator had consented to the potential dangers involved.

They supported their position with testimony from various witnesses who attested to the track’s safety measures and the absence of prior incidents, aiming to establish a pattern of responsible management by the Brooklands Auto Racing Company.

Hall vs Brooklands Auto-Racing Club Judgement

In Hall vs Brooklands Auto-Racing Club, the Court of Appeal, led by Lord Justice Scrutton, reversed the trial court’s judgment involving law of torts in favour of the plaintiff. The decision hinged on the concept of reasonable foreseeability and the duty of care required by the defendants, operators of the auto-racing track. Lord Justice Scrutton emphasised that the defendants were only obligated to safeguard against risks that were reasonably foreseeable and not those that were extraordinary or inherently part of the spectator experience in auto racing.

The judgment concluded that the incident was an extraordinary event, the first of its kind in over 23 years of racing activities at the track. Given this history, the court deemed the accident unforeseeable.

Therefore, the defendants could not be expected to have taken precautions against such an unlikely event. Furthermore, Lord Justice Scrutton pointed out that no barrier could have been reasonably expected to withstand the unique and highly unlikely impact that occurred during the accident.

Additionally, the court noted that by purchasing a ticket, the plaintiff had implied consent to the risks inherent to watching a motor race, which includes potential accidents. As a result, the defendants were found not liable and no damages were awarded to the plaintiff. The judgment underscored the balance between ensuring safety and recognising the inherent risks associated with certain types of entertainment and sports.