Dangerous tackle in Rugby - does it apply to motorsport
Discussion
I am aware of this and the way it was explained to me was that after the SEAT incident Brands had not really held anything international that required the highest level of clearance, DTM needed it so they did the risk assessment and it came back with this idea. I think before then the "improvements" were not required by any events there maybe
'What happens on track stays on track '..There is a widespread misconception that motor sport is somehow exempt from the law when an incident results in injury or death because 'motor racing is dangerous . '. It is not legally possible to exclude civil liability (ie a claim founded in negligence ) for injury or death , whatever forms and notices have been signed and displayed . Nothing new - that has been the case since the late Seventies . But obviously the duty of care (breach of which gives rise to a claim ) is very different in a motor racing context than in normal road driving .
LukeBrown66 said:
I am aware of this and the way it was explained to me was that after the SEAT incident Brands had not really held anything international that required the highest level of clearance, DTM needed it so they did the risk assessment and it came back with this idea. I think before then the "improvements" were not required by any events there maybe
It was the DTM as you say that demanded the high fences on the GP loop for those two races. The spectating areas changed forever.I think you are confusing the issues here.
The thread was about the rugby tackle case and now you are talking about catch fencing for spectator safety, and complaining about the it spoiling the spectator's view. What has that got to do with the rugby tackle case?
The rugby player didn't deliberately throw the ball into the face of a spectator, or even accidentally do so, which is probably the analogy with motorsport and spectators. No spectators were involved at all in the rugby tackle case. It was between two players.
Just to deal with the Brands Hatch fencing issue:
The DTM race was years ago. It was discussed on here back in 2018, and whatever the complaints about catch fencing at Brands, and the impact on spectating, they are still insufficient. Bikes are still going over the fence, or almost doing so. Bikes are the bigger problem. There is much more of a likelihood of a bike going over a fence and hitting spectators.
Officials are still being hit, including a marshal who was tragically killed last year by a car. The coroner ruled that it was an accident.
There is a lot of rules around safety fencing, which are constantly evolving to be able to retain track licences. For instance, wooden posts that used to hold the armco now need to be metal. There is a lot of research at FIA level. It's far more than some series director turning up, and saying - I don't like that; that won't do; I don't want that; I do want this.
Just as an example:
https://www.fia.com/circuit-safety
https://www.geobrugg.com/file-83248/downloadcenter...
As to the rugby tackle case, I wouldn't read too much into that. It excites tabloid newspapers, but that is all. It's only a first instance decision, and it could even be appealed. The Judge called it "very unusual and exceptional".
The law report is here if anyone wants to read it:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...
+czernuszka+))
The Judge concluded his judgment by saying:
"I therefore find that in this very unusual and exceptional context, the Defendant executing a manoeuvre which was not within the experience of Mr Morrison (referee, expert witness) and virtually outside the experience of Mr Spreadbury (referee, expert witness), the Defendant is liable to the Claimant for the injuries which the Claimant sustained, and there shall be judgment for the Claimant."
The Judge also stated:
"I have no doubt that the Defendant did, as the Claimant said, utter the words: "That f.....g number 7, I'm going to break her." Thereafter, she was looking for an opportunity to get her revenge on the Claimant: the red mist had metaphorically descended over the Defendant's eyes"
The Judge also went through the previous case law that has set precedents. The most recent one was 2004.
"So far as the legal test is concerned.....within the law of negligence, the test is whether the Defendant failed to exercise such degree of care as was appropriate in all the circumstances: this was the test endorsed in Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866 where the Court of Appeal adopted the formulation and approach of Kitto J in Rootes v Shelton [1968] ALR 33. In particular, I do not consider that the Court of Appeal, in Blake v Galloway did, or intended to, lay down any rule or principle that, in the sporting context, the conduct complained of must be reckless or demonstrate a very high degree of carelessness in order for liability to be established. That was the standard applied in that particular case, and in the particular circumstances of that injury arising out of horseplay with the factors described by Dyson LJ and set out at paragraph 44 above. Indeed, a requirement to establish recklessness was expressly rejected and disapproved by the Court of Appeal in Smoldon v Whitworth (1997) ELR 249. However, if I am wrong about that, it doesn't make any difference in this case because, on my findings, the Defendant was indeed reckless and so satisfies this higher, more stringent, test in any event."
So, the law is pretty well settled in this area and has been for years and years. Just the standard test for negligence.
Whether the Judge was right about Blake -v- Galloway is another issue.
In summary, if in motorsport, as a competitor, you have the red mist, you are out for revenge, to break someone, then if you do, you might be liable, particularly if your case comes before HHJ Spencer.
If you fail to exercise such degree of care as was appropriate in all the circumstances, you might be liable, but you might have to be reckless or demonstrate a very high degree of carelessness.
Carelessness needs to be viewed in the terms set out in the tragic marshal death case, and in view of the rules of the game.
Coroner Roger Hatch noted that Motorsport UK's investigation had found there was no breach in regulations, and that the dangers of motorsport were recognised by "drivers, marshals and anyone involved."
That was in contrast to the rugby tackle case, where the Judge accepted the expert's evidence who said:
"it is evident that there were a number of incidents of (the Defendant) breaching the law of the game, and in some cases, these actions constituted foul play. I have highlighted earlier in this report, the incidents where I believe (the Defendant) did not show due regard to the Spirit or the Laws of the game and was in breach of her duty of care towards her opponents.
The thread was about the rugby tackle case and now you are talking about catch fencing for spectator safety, and complaining about the it spoiling the spectator's view. What has that got to do with the rugby tackle case?
The rugby player didn't deliberately throw the ball into the face of a spectator, or even accidentally do so, which is probably the analogy with motorsport and spectators. No spectators were involved at all in the rugby tackle case. It was between two players.
Just to deal with the Brands Hatch fencing issue:
The DTM race was years ago. It was discussed on here back in 2018, and whatever the complaints about catch fencing at Brands, and the impact on spectating, they are still insufficient. Bikes are still going over the fence, or almost doing so. Bikes are the bigger problem. There is much more of a likelihood of a bike going over a fence and hitting spectators.
Officials are still being hit, including a marshal who was tragically killed last year by a car. The coroner ruled that it was an accident.
There is a lot of rules around safety fencing, which are constantly evolving to be able to retain track licences. For instance, wooden posts that used to hold the armco now need to be metal. There is a lot of research at FIA level. It's far more than some series director turning up, and saying - I don't like that; that won't do; I don't want that; I do want this.
Just as an example:
https://www.fia.com/circuit-safety
https://www.geobrugg.com/file-83248/downloadcenter...
As to the rugby tackle case, I wouldn't read too much into that. It excites tabloid newspapers, but that is all. It's only a first instance decision, and it could even be appealed. The Judge called it "very unusual and exceptional".
The law report is here if anyone wants to read it:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...
+czernuszka+))The Judge concluded his judgment by saying:
"I therefore find that in this very unusual and exceptional context, the Defendant executing a manoeuvre which was not within the experience of Mr Morrison (referee, expert witness) and virtually outside the experience of Mr Spreadbury (referee, expert witness), the Defendant is liable to the Claimant for the injuries which the Claimant sustained, and there shall be judgment for the Claimant."
The Judge also stated:
"I have no doubt that the Defendant did, as the Claimant said, utter the words: "That f.....g number 7, I'm going to break her." Thereafter, she was looking for an opportunity to get her revenge on the Claimant: the red mist had metaphorically descended over the Defendant's eyes"
The Judge also went through the previous case law that has set precedents. The most recent one was 2004.
"So far as the legal test is concerned.....within the law of negligence, the test is whether the Defendant failed to exercise such degree of care as was appropriate in all the circumstances: this was the test endorsed in Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866 where the Court of Appeal adopted the formulation and approach of Kitto J in Rootes v Shelton [1968] ALR 33. In particular, I do not consider that the Court of Appeal, in Blake v Galloway did, or intended to, lay down any rule or principle that, in the sporting context, the conduct complained of must be reckless or demonstrate a very high degree of carelessness in order for liability to be established. That was the standard applied in that particular case, and in the particular circumstances of that injury arising out of horseplay with the factors described by Dyson LJ and set out at paragraph 44 above. Indeed, a requirement to establish recklessness was expressly rejected and disapproved by the Court of Appeal in Smoldon v Whitworth (1997) ELR 249. However, if I am wrong about that, it doesn't make any difference in this case because, on my findings, the Defendant was indeed reckless and so satisfies this higher, more stringent, test in any event."
So, the law is pretty well settled in this area and has been for years and years. Just the standard test for negligence.
Whether the Judge was right about Blake -v- Galloway is another issue.
In summary, if in motorsport, as a competitor, you have the red mist, you are out for revenge, to break someone, then if you do, you might be liable, particularly if your case comes before HHJ Spencer.
If you fail to exercise such degree of care as was appropriate in all the circumstances, you might be liable, but you might have to be reckless or demonstrate a very high degree of carelessness.
Carelessness needs to be viewed in the terms set out in the tragic marshal death case, and in view of the rules of the game.
Coroner Roger Hatch noted that Motorsport UK's investigation had found there was no breach in regulations, and that the dangers of motorsport were recognised by "drivers, marshals and anyone involved."
That was in contrast to the rugby tackle case, where the Judge accepted the expert's evidence who said:
"it is evident that there were a number of incidents of (the Defendant) breaching the law of the game, and in some cases, these actions constituted foul play. I have highlighted earlier in this report, the incidents where I believe (the Defendant) did not show due regard to the Spirit or the Laws of the game and was in breach of her duty of care towards her opponents.
Edited by LucyP on Tuesday 28th February 13:23
The point was that health and safety and basically insurance covers a lot of areas in our sport. |And law obviously, if a driver deliberately goes out to harm a rival it is perhaps tough to prove and relatively easy to defend! It will be your word against theirs, unless there is clear evidence of intent.
hence why I brought up the Prost/Senna case at Suzuka in 1990 when there was clear intent and an actual admission later in life. But as nobody was harmed it was left alone other than bringing the sport into disrepute.
hence why I brought up the Prost/Senna case at Suzuka in 1990 when there was clear intent and an actual admission later in life. But as nobody was harmed it was left alone other than bringing the sport into disrepute.
But it isn't an insurance or a health and safety issue.
They come into play when there is a crash and a wheel is ripped off, goes over the fence and hits a spectator.
When one competitor sets out to deliberately or recklessly, injure another, that is a whole different scenario, and that is the rugby tackle case.
They come into play when there is a crash and a wheel is ripped off, goes over the fence and hits a spectator.
When one competitor sets out to deliberately or recklessly, injure another, that is a whole different scenario, and that is the rugby tackle case.
The rugby case may be appealled, although the defendant would rather not. It is her counsel who wants to. The expert witness was of the opinion it was a legal tackle and an accident right up until he walked into court. A case had been built on this, which obviously then fell apart. The defendant, her rugby club and her friends have been subject to some rather nasty social media posts in the last few days, which no matter what your views, is not on.
LukeBrown66 said:
I can think of another one, when Martin Schanche got out of his car in Finland in 1992, in front of the pack of cars on their next lap, but the only person potentially really hurt there was him, but again, avoidance could have caused cars to go anywhere, crowd, marshals etc, he was banned, but maybe more should and could have happened. The so called Mr Rallycross has form for doing stupid stuff like this though.
Wow, core memory unlocked there. When I was a kid I regularly watched the "Car Wars" series on VHS. Schanche was the main protagonist of virtually every rallycross segment featured. Of course at the time it was great entertainment, now I'm older I do think it's very fortunate no-one was killed or seriously injured due to his antics.LucyP said:
Not really many grounds for appeal. Always a nuisance when your expert caves in court. Although the case was also lost because the judge accepted that the defendant said the words about breaking the other.
I think her counsel was just annoyed the expert changed his mind completely and has since been uncontactable. The words were just typical trash talk, but now rather unfortunate to say the least. I believe the defendant now just wants to put this behind her and hopes the money will help towards the victims care in the future.LucyP said:
But it isn't an insurance or a health and safety issue.
They come into play when there is a crash and a wheel is ripped off, goes over the fence and hits a spectator.
When one competitor sets out to deliberately or recklessly, injure another, that is a whole different scenario, and that is the rugby tackle case.
I'm assuming there is an insurance issue in all this, the defendant in the rugby case has been awarded £10mill, surely it is an insurance company that will be paying (if indeed it is paid)?They come into play when there is a crash and a wheel is ripped off, goes over the fence and hits a spectator.
When one competitor sets out to deliberately or recklessly, injure another, that is a whole different scenario, and that is the rugby tackle case.
Closest I can think of, would be the ruling after this incident
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA2G1JzQNuY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA2G1JzQNuY
Gassing Station | UK Club Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff