Volenti non fit injuriaConsentCourt of Appeal (England)

Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club

[1933] 1 King's Bench 20519331 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The plaintiff attended a motor race as a paying spectator. During the race, two cars collided, and one was thrown into the crowd, injuring the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the racing club for negligence.
Issue
Whether a spectator injured by an accident inherent to a sporting event's ordinary risks can recover, or whether attendance itself constitutes consent to this risk.
Held
A spectator attending an inherently risky sporting event consents to the ordinary, inherent risks that sport carries.
Principle
Spectators at inherently risky sporting events are taken to consent to the ordinary, inherent risks of the sport, provided it is conducted in the ordinary and proper manner.
Cite this

Facts

  • The plaintiff attended a motor race as a paying spectator
  • During the race, two cars collided, and one was thrown into the crowd, injuring the plaintiff
  • The plaintiff sued the racing club for negligence
  • The event had been conducted according to the ordinary, proper standards for such races

Issue

  1. Whether a spectator injured by an accident inherent to a sporting event's ordinary risks can recover, or whether attendance itself constitutes consent to this risk.

Held

  • A spectator attending an inherently risky sporting event consents to the ordinary, inherent risks that sport carries
  • This includes the risk of an accident of the general kind that occurred, provided the event was conducted in the ordinary and proper manner
  • The volenti defence applied; the claim was barred

Ratio decidendi

Volenti non fit injuria bars a claim where the plaintiff has voluntarily and knowingly accepted the risk of the type of harm that materialised, including the ordinary, inherent risks of attending a properly conducted sporting event. This does not extend to risks arising from conduct exceeding the sport's ordinary, proper conduct.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Part A: Classic volenti defence in the sporting event context.
  • Part B: Pair with Smith v Baker (1891) to contrast genuine consent (Hall) against mere knowledge without genuine choice (Smith).
  • Key line: "Spectators at inherently risky sporting events consent to the ordinary, inherent risks, provided it is conducted properly."

Cite this

Citation

Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club [1933] 1 King's Bench 205

Reported: [1933] 1 KB 205. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.