When spectators at a potentially dangerous sporting event consent to exposure to the hazard
What happened?
The accident happened at a racing track for motor cars (Brooklands Auto-Racing Club in Surrey). The track was oval in shape with a long, straight stretch, which was over one hundred feet wide and bounded on its outer side by a cement kerb, beyond which was a strip of grass between four and five feet in width enclosed within an iron railing four feet six inches high. Spectators were admitted on payment to view the races, and stands were provided in which they could do this in safety, but many persons preferred to stand along and outside the railing.
On the day of the accident, two competing cars in a long distance race on this track were involved in a collision on the finishing straight, with one of the cars being flung into the air and over the kerb and railing, hitting a group of spectators and killing two of them. No such accident had occurred previously in the history of the course, which had been running races for over twenty years.
An injured spectator sued the racing track for negligence, alleging that the premises had not been made adequately safe for spectators, nor had adequate warning of the dangers been given.
Legal Outcome
It was the duty of the defendants to see that the track was as free from danger as reasonable care and skill could make it, but they were under no duty to guard against risks that were not reasonably foreseeable, or which were innate to motor racing activity. As no accident of this nature had previously occurred it could not be said to be reasonably foreseeable.
What can we learn from what happened?
This is a very historical case, dating back to 1933, but the themes are as relevant now as they were then
As is often the case, the principal issue here is one of reasonable foreseeability. No such accident had occurred which contributed to their assessment, but it is important to stress that the absence of a previous accident does not mean that a future accident could not happen.
A difference here is that the spectators knew that what they were watching was fast moving cars, and sometimes accidents involving those cars happen. The spectators in question chose to view the action from behind the railings rather than from the stands, and they consented to this greater exposure to the hazard, thus reducing their claim of negligence.
Source of Information
Law Teacher