Slack v Glenie & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 145 (19 April 2000)

Slack v Glenie & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 145 (19 April 2000)

The first defendant, as occupier, owed a duty of care to the claimant, who was a lawful visitor. The track was inherently unsafe due to the absence of a clear in-field run-off area, a hazard not acceptable even in a dangerous sport. The first defendant was vicariously liable for negligent advice from his employee and personally failed to discharge his duty of care. The claimant did not voluntarily assume the risk as he was unaware of the unacceptable hazard. Both claimant and defendants were equally responsible, justifying a 50% reduction for contributory negligence.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 145
Parties
First Defendant/appellant: Reginald Slack; Claimant/respondent: Mr Glenie; Second Defendant/respondent: Second Defendant (Chairman of Motor Sports Promotions)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Contributory Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Vicarious Liability
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Contributory Negligence Volenti Non Fit Injuria Vicarious Liability

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reginald Slack

First Defendant/appellant

Mr Glenie

Claimant/respondent

Second Defendant (Chairman of Motor Sports Promotions)

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant was in breach of that duty
  3. 3 Whether the claimant voluntarily assumed the risk of injury (volenti non fit injuria)

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant, as occupier, owed a duty of care to the claimant, who was a lawful visitor. The track was inherently unsafe due to the absence of a clear in-field run-off area, a hazard not acceptable even in a dangerous sport. The first defendant was vicariously liable for negligent advice from his employee and personally failed to discharge his duty of care. The claimant did not voluntarily assume the risk as he was unaware of the unacceptable hazard. Both claimant and defendants were equally responsible, justifying a 50% reduction for contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Cross-appeal set out in respondent's notice dismissed