What duty did the organisers have?

To take reasonable care against risks that a reasonable person could foresee—not to guarantee safety against every remote possibility.

Did the spectator consent to risk?

By attending a motor race, spectators accept ordinary, inherent risks; they do not accept harm from unreasonable hazards.

Why did the defendants win?

Because the accident was exceptionally rare and adequate barriers existed. The risk of this specific harm was too remote to be foreseeable.

What is the exam takeaway?

Foreseeability is about likely risks, not mere possibilities. Reasonable precautions suffice; perfection isn’t required.

Hall v. Brookelands Auto Racing Club

Hall v. Brookelands Auto Racing Club (1932)

Tort — Negligence 1 KB 205 1932 (decision), Published: 31 Oct 2025 Court of Appeal Gulzar Hashmi ~5 min read

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: spectator risk, foreseeability, negligence SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: assumption of risk, motor racing, venue safety

Quick Summary

At a motor race, two cars collided; one car flew over barriers and struck spectators. Such an event had not happened in 20 years. The court held the organisers were not negligent because the risk was too remote and reasonable barriers already existed. Spectators accept ordinary racing risks.

Citation: Hall v. Brookelands Auto Racing Club (1932) 1 KB 205

Issues

Did the organisers take sufficient precautions to protect spectators?
Did the plaintiff consent to the ordinary risks of being a spectator at a motor race?

Rules

Duty extends to risks a reasonable person could foresee and guard against.

No duty to prevent highly remote or unforeseeable accidents; the law requires reasonable precautions, not absolute safety.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline showing track layout, barriers, rare accident, injuries

Defendants owned an oval motor track with a straight stretch ~100 ft wide.

Outside was a 6-inch kerb, a 4 ft 5 in grass strip, and a 4 ft 6 in iron railing.

Stands were provided, but many spectators chose to stand along/outside the railing after buying tickets.

During a long-distance race, two cars collided on the finish straight; one car flew over barriers, striking spectators, killing two and injuring others.

No similar accident in the past 20 years at that track.

Injured spectator sued for negligence, alleging unsafe premises.

Arguments

Appellant (Spectator)

Organisers should have foreseen car ejections and added stronger barriers.
Standing areas near the railing were unsafe for paying spectators.

Respondents (Club)

Accident was exceptional; no similar event in 20 years.
Track had multiple barriers and designated safe stands.

Judgment

Gavel with racing flag representing the Hall v. Brookelands decision

The court held for the defendants. They were not bound to provide safety under all circumstances, only against foreseeable risks. Given the rarity of such accidents and the existing barriers, no negligence was found. Spectators accept the ordinary risks of motor racing.

Reasonable precautions, not perfection, are required at dangerous sports.

Ratio

Foreseeability sets the boundary of duty. Where a venue has taken reasonable, standard precautions and an accident is highly unusual, organisers are not liable. Spectators are taken to assume inherent risks of the sport.

Why It Matters

Clarifies duty of care for sports organisers and venues.
Explains limits of liability where risks are remote.
Useful for exam problems on foreseeability and assumption of risk.

Key Takeaways

Remote risk ≠ breach—duty tracks likely, foreseeable harm.
Existing barriers and stands show reasonable care.
Spectators assume ordinary risks of the event they attend.
Negligence needs probability, not mere possibility.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “RACE = RARE ACCIDENT? CARE ENOUGH.”

Rare? If risk is rare, duty is limited.
Accident? Ask if it was foreseeable.
Care Enough: Barriers/stands = reasonable precautions.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Were the injuries to spectators reasonably foreseeable so as to require more precautions?

Rule

Duty covers foreseeable risks; law does not demand guarding against remote possibilities.

Application

Barriers existed; no similar accident in 20 years. The flying car event was exceptional and unlikely.

Conclusion

No breach by organisers; claim fails.

Glossary

Foreseeability: A likely risk that a reasonable person would anticipate and take steps to prevent.
Assumption of Risk: When someone voluntarily faces a known, ordinary risk of an activity or sport.
Breach of Duty: Failure to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable harm.