A law firm believes a recent High Court case represents “a significant development in the law concerning liability and duty of care for anyone organising or participating in amateur sporting events, especially cycling road races”.
We first reported the outcome of the case in June, a judge ruling that Ferryhill Wheelers cycling club was not liable for a time trial collision which left a cyclist in hospital for three months with serious life-changing injuries, the driver who hit the rider having accused the volunteer-run club of a negligent risk assessment and insufficient signage and marshals.
The rider who suffered a severe traumatic brain injury brought civil proceedings against the motorist, Raymond Fell, for negligent driving, however the driver’s representatives then brought proceedings against the cycling club alleging negligent risk assessment and failure to put out adequate signage and/or a sufficient number of marshals.
Even with the driver’s insurers admitting liability in full ahead of the High Court trial, proceedings continued as they argued there should be a contribution from Ferryhill Wheelers too.
However, in what lawyers have called an “important judgement” for grassroots cycling clubs, Mr Justice Ritchie dismissed the case and stated that the risk assessments were carried out properly and sufficiently. He also concluded that Ferryhill Wheelers are “a voluntary organisation carrying out tasks for free for the benefit of members of society and the standard of care placed upon them in law is not so high that it would discourage such beneficial voluntary activities”.
“A significant development”
Speaking to road.cc about the implications and importance of the case Laura Murphy — the partner at Leigh Day solicitors instructed for the claimant and Martin Porter KC, barrister for the cycling club, Ferryhill Wheelers — suggested the case “represents a significant development in the law concerning liability and duty of care for anyone organising or participating in amateur sporting events, especially cycling road races”.
“The judgment gives helpful guidance about the level of risk assessment and warnings that should be given to participants in advance of an event,” she said. “It also highlights the importance of volunteers — stating that people giving up their time for the benefit of cycling members of the community should be encouraged.”
The collision happened on 23 May 2019 as the cyclist participated in a Ferryhill Wheelers-organised 10-mile time trial on an eastbound stretch of the A689 dual carriageway. The driver was driving westbound on the A689 and he intended to turn right across the eastbound lanes, decelerating to 20mph in the right-turning lane before crossing ‘give way’ markings and causing a collision with the oncoming rider.
The cyclist was seriously injured and suffered life-changing injuries which included a severe traumatic brain injury. Civil proceedings were brought by the cyclist against the driver. However, in response, the driver’s representatives brought proceedings against Ferryhill Wheelers cycling club and alleged negligent risk assessment and failure to put out adequate signs and/or a sufficient number of marshals.
The club denied liability and the case was set for a High Court trial. Then, shortly before the trial, the driver’s insurers admitted liability in full for the collision, but continued to argue for a contribution from the cycling club. It was that second aspect which went to court and was subsequently dismissed by Mr Justice Ritchie.
In his judgement, the judge said the driver Mr Fell had failed to see hazard warning signs informing road users of the cycling event and failed to see marshals with high viz jackets at two roundabouts which he passed shortly before the collision. He did not adjust his driving on his approach to the slip lane despite signs warning of cycling, horses and pedestrians.
The sign at the junction was clearly visible to drivers turning right and it showed a bicycle. The wording at the bottom was partly obscured by grass but, the judge continued, a reasonable driver would have realised that the sign related to a cycling event being held at that time.
Mr Fell maintained he never saw the cyclist, despite the rider being in clear sunshine for 40-60 metres before the collision.
When assessing the cycling club’s responsibility, the judge said it is true that the event organiser had a duty to take reasonable care through risk assessment and implementation of reasonable warning measures to the riders to avoid acts or omissions that would foreseeably injure riders.
However, when considering the scope of that duty, the standard of care to be applied was that of a reasonably competent and reasonably informed volunteer, and that as far as they reasonably could, Ferryhill Wheelers had brought its event to the attention of road users via signs and marshals.
“All those involved gave their time for free, for the love of the sport and to help each other enjoy the sport,” he said. “Bicycle riding on public roads is inherently dangerous but people love it. Riding bicycles is encouraged in cities and in the country. Sport is good for health.
“If a standard of care in relation to risk assessment which is too high is imposed on time trial clubs, people may be put off contributing for free or at all. Insurance premiums will rise. Volunteers are not looking to be sued, they are looking to help others. I find that this club and CTT itself was carrying out an activity for the benefit of the cycling members of society.
“It is not the responsibility of the club to force or persuade 3rd party drivers to fulfil their responsibilities. Drunk drivers, drugged drivers, stressed drivers, distracted drivers, all drive on our roads. In my judgment it is not reasonable to expect the club to mark every side road or junction as ‘high’ risk and assign a marshal to each just because of such errant behaviour.
“This was a voluntary organisation carrying out tasks for free for the benefit of members of society and the standard of care placed upon them in law is not so high that it would discourage such beneficial voluntary activities.”
Leigh Day suggests this is the first judgment where successful reliance was placed on the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015, in which the Court must have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members.
The firm says the case “provides helpful and sensible guidance for those who give their free time to help organise time trial or other racing events for the benefit of the cycling community in a safe manner”.
“It should provide reassurance to national governing bodies, individual clubs and organising members and to those who insure such events,” they concluded.