 |
National Sporting Organisations may be responsible for accidents in their sport
13/08/05
|
 |
A recent case in the UK may go some way to explain whether national and international sporting organisations could be liable for accidents which occur at a sporting event. New Zealander’s will be aware of the Queenstown Car Rally case in which Motorsport NZ took the blame for the death of spectators during the Queenstown rally. The UK case of Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Company and Others is similar, but was a civil case for negligence. In New Zealand, claims in the civil courts for damages arising out of personal injury are barred due to ACC legislation, but those knowledgeable about liability under the New Zealand Crimes Act will know that the principles applicable in civil negligence may apply to New Zealand criminal prosecutions.
The Facts
The case involved a high speed accident in November 1998 at Goodwood Race track. The driver was killed when he lost control of his Austin Healy as he came out of a bend and his car hit a tyre fronted earth bank at the side of the track. The driver was competing in a private “Goodwood Day”, in other words, it was not an event sanctioned either by the National Body, the MSA, or the International Body, the FIA. However, the driver’s estate commenced legal proceedings against not only the track operator but also the MSA and the FIA.
The Case for the Driver
The driver’s legal representatives argued that the race track owner failed in its duty to ensure that the track was safe. Specifically they argued that it hadn’t done enough to carry out risk assessments and it hadn’t discussed with the MSA sufficiently what happened at “non-racing events”. The issue was whether the tyre design was appropriate for that part bend where the collision had occurred and which had been assessed as an area of low impact risk. The track operator admitted that it had a duty to the driver to ensure safety, but argued that it had not breached that duty i.e. it had done enough to ensure safety.
The case against the MSA was framed differently. Here the driver’s legal representatives argued that the MSA owed a duty to him in their capacity as the body which oversees the sport. This was denied by the MSA. The principal ground on which they denied any responsibility to the driver was that the event in which the driver was participating was not an MSA approved or sanctioned event. They argued that if it had been, then they would have insisted on a number of checks and further measures.
The case against the FIA was similar and the FIA’s arguments in response were largely the same as the MSA. In addition, the FIA argued that its role in inspecting and recommending safety measures was far less than the MSA. The FIA did not issue a licence to Goodwood and its organisational structure showed that primary responsibility for licensing track operators and safety rested with the national bodies of the sport. The FIA’s involvement was limited and only extended to whether they would authorise a particular event for inclusion into the International calendar.
The decision
The court found that the track operator was not at fault. Specifically it had taken reasonable steps to engage competent experts to advise on track safety (i.e. the MSA) and to follow their advice and recommendations. However, it was found that the MSA did owe a duty to the driver because their involvement with the track went well beyond licensing or authorising events and extended to making specific recommendations and suggestions for all parts of the track. The FIA were not treated the same. The court found that, despite their recommendations as to circuit design possibly being present during non FIA events, their involvement in track design and safety was relatively limited.
These findings meant that the MSA were potentially at fault however the court also found, after consideration of expert evidence, that the type of barrier chosen for the bend was reasonable. The court further went on to say that the design of the barrier was unlikely to be the cause of the driver’s death. Interestingly, the court also considered whether the driver had consented to the risks in the activity. They found that had negligence been proved, consent would not have excluded liability since any consent would only extend to the risks inherent with the activity. Anyway, the court said, the driver was partially responsible for the accident by trying to drive out of the danger rather than applying his brakes.
What does this mean for New Zealand cases?
This case is a reminder that National Sporting Organisations may be liable for accidents which occur in their sport where their involvement in an event goes as far as given specific advice on safety. Here the event in question wasn’t a sanctioned event by the MSA, yet general advice given about track layout in relation to other events (which were implemented for this event) was sufficient for a finding that the MSA could be liable. Had this incident occurred in New Zealand it would have been arguable that the MSA’s involvement with the Goodwood venue put them in control of it for the purposes of s156 Crimes Act.
The issue of consent should also strike a chord with event organisers who require participants to sign a consent form accepting the risks before participating in the activity. Such consent forms only operate to exclude liability for the inherent risks in an activity. Where negligence is found the participant’s consent will be irrelevant.
If you want to know how to avoid legal laibility for sporting accidents click here.
|
|
 |
I Can Fix It!
If you spot any glitches or bugs in this website or have
any suggestions to improve either this site or the products
and services I offer then please let me know by pressing
the bug. |  |
|
|
|
 |
