| Citation | Hall V Brooklands Auto Racing Club ( 1932) 1 KB 205 |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | There was a motor racing track owned by the members of Brooklands Racing Club. The track was oval in shape and distanced two miles. It constituted a long stretch with the finishing line which was over a hundred feet wide. Spectators were allowed to view the races upon payment. Stands were provided for the spectators to view with safety, but many preferred to stand outside the railing. Among the competing cars, two cars were going in the finishing straight at about a hundred miles per hour. As they were approaching a sharp bend to the left, the car in front turned to the right and the other car did the same. While doing so, the car touched the offside of the former car and it shot into the air and fell into the railing, thereby killing two spectators and injuring others. In the history of racing, no such incident has happened. An action was brought by one of the defendants against the racing club for inviting the spectators to witness such a dangerous sport without giving notices or warnings. |
| Issues | Did the defendant Company omit to give a warning for the safety of the spectator? Is the plea maintainable to hold the defendant liable? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | Volenti non fit injuria The Ratio of the Case The defendant proved that this was the first time such an accident had taken place. The House of Lords decided that there was no negligence on the part of the motor car racing driver as such accidents were inherent in a racing event. When the spectators purchased tickets for witnessing the race, they had given implied consent. The doctrine of voluntary non−fit injuria was applicable since the victims had prior knowledge of the probable risks and had consented for the same. Judgment It was the duty of the defendants to take precautions on all the foreseeable aspects as a prudent and reasonable man would do in any case. However, the defendants are under no duty to guard against the risk that was not reasonably foreseeable or the danger which was inherent to the sport. The plaintiff impliedly took the risk of such injury at the time of purchasing the tickets. As no accident of this nature had previously occurred, it could not be reasonably foreseeable and therefore, the defendants were not required to prevent the risk of such an accident that no amount of due diligence would have revealed. The plea was not maintainable and the defendants were not held liable to provide damages to the injured plaintiff. |
| Judgment | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
To do
