Corbett v Cumbria Kart Racing Club & Ors [2013] EWHC 1362 (QB) (22 May 2013)

Corbett v Cumbria Kart Racing Club & Ors [2013] EWHC 1362 (QB) (22 May 2013)

It was reasonably foreseeable that vehicles could leave the track at speed and collide with the tyre barrier and ambulance. The defendants failed to take reasonable care by permitting the ambulance to be positioned behind an inadequate tyre barrier, creating an unnecessary and foreseeable risk of injury. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1362
Parties
Claimant: Peter Corbett (A Protected Person by his Wife and Litigation Friend Anita Corbett); First Defendant: Cumbria Kart Racing Club; Second Defendant: Tracksport Challenge Limited; Third Defendant: RAC Motor Sports Association Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Trial on Preliminary Issues of Causation and Liability
Outcome
Liability established against both defendants for breach of duty of care.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Foreseeability, Causation, Motor Sports Safety, Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers Liability Duty of Care Foreseeability Causation Motor Sports Safety Occupiers Liability Act 1957

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Corbett (A Protected Person by his Wife and Litigation Friend Anita Corbett)

Claimant

Cumbria Kart Racing Club

First Defendant

Tracksport Challenge Limited

Second Defendant

RAC Motor Sports Association Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Trial on Preliminary Issues of Causation and Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the accident and injury to the claimant foreseeable?
  2. 2 Did the defendants breach their duty of care under common law and the Occupiers Liability Act 1957?
  3. 3 Was the ambulance's position and the adequacy of the tyre barrier a breach of duty?

Ratio Decidendi

It was reasonably foreseeable that vehicles could leave the track at speed and collide with the tyre barrier and ambulance. The defendants failed to take reasonable care by permitting the ambulance to be positioned behind an inadequate tyre barrier, creating an unnecessary and foreseeable risk of injury. The claimant's head injury was caused by impact with the ambulance, not the tyre barrier. The defendants breached their duty of care under both common law and the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.

Court Disposition

Liability established against both defendants for breach of duty of care.

Orders

  • Defendants held liable for claimant's injuries.
  • Claim proceeds to assessment of damages.