Injured Motorcycle Racer Receives Judge’s Praise – But No Compensation

The courage of many accident victims is deserving of great admiration, but judges are required to put sympathy aside when considering issues of liability. The High Court staunchly observed that principle in the case of a motorcycle racer who sustained life-changing spinal injuries during a championship event.

The race was in its early stages when the successful and experienced rider made contact with the rear wheel of a bike immediately ahead of him. Unable to negotiate a bend, he collided with the tyre wall that comprised the track’s safety barrier. He sought compensation from the sport’s governing body, the organiser of the event, the owner and operator of the track and individuals whose responsibility it was to inspect and maintain the track’s safety features.

His primary case was that, had straw bales been deployed at the point of impact, he would have avoided serious injury. He contended that deficiencies in the tyre wall were such that straw bales should have been positioned as an additional safety measure. Alternatively, he contended that the race should have been cancelled or that he should at least have been warned of the danger.

Ruling on his claim, the Court noted that the use of straw bales in race barriers had fallen out of favour with the sport’s international governing body prior to the accident. The decision to abandon them as a component part of safety barriers on the track was entirely justified and there was no plausible evidence that the safety of the barrier in question had been compromised by their absence.

The Court found that the tyre wall was deficient in that it was not appropriately bound together. However, the main purpose of that requirement was to prevent loose tyres escaping onto the track and causing a hazard to competitors. Had all the tyres been secured as they should have been, the barrier would, if anything, have presented a less yielding and forgiving surface to any rider who collided with it.

Reintroducing straw bales into the barrier before the race would not have been an appropriate or rational response to the risk posed by the unbound tyres. The Court was also not satisfied that the rider would have chosen to withdraw from the race had he been informed of the absence of straw bales from the barrier.

The Court praised the extraordinary level of courage and determination the rider had shown in coming to terms with his injuries. He had inspired colleagues in the racing world with well-earned affection and loyalty. However, the shortcomings in his case were irremediable and his claim stood to be dismissed.