The Limits of Spectator Consent: White v Blackmore (1972)
Case Essentials
Citation: White v Blackmore [1972] 2 QB 651
Court: Court of Appeal (England)
Plaintiff: Mrs. White (Widow of Mr. White, the spectator)
Defendant: Mr. Blackmore (The race organizer)
The Story Behind the Case
Mr. White went to watch a local jalopy car race. He stood in a designated spectator area behind a safety rope set up by the organizers. During the race, a car lost control and its wheel became tangled in the rope. Because the rope was improperly rigged, it acted like a giant slingshot, catapulting Mr. White and causing fatal injuries. When his widow sued for negligence, the organizers argued that by choosing to attend a known dangerous motor race, he had voluntarily accepted the risk of getting hurt.
Facts
A spectator was killed when an improperly secured safety rope acted as a catapult after a race car crashed into it. The organizers claimed the spectator voluntarily assumed the inherent risks of motor racing.
Issue
Does a spectator’s consent to the general, inherent dangers of a sport also include consent to the organizer’s active negligence in setting up safety barriers?
Rule
The defence of Volenti non fit injuria only applies to the ordinary, inherent risks of an activity. A person cannot consent to a specific risk they are completely unaware of, such as the negligent construction of a safety barrier.
Analysis
The court held that while Mr. White accepted the general risks of motor racing, he did not know about or consent to the specific danger created by the organizers’ negligent setup of the ropes. He trusted that the spectator area was reasonably safe. Because he had no knowledge that the ropes were rigged dangerously, he could not have legally consented to that specific risk. (Note: While the Volenti defence failed, the organizers ultimately avoided liability on a separate technicality regarding a warning sign that acted as a contract exclusion clause.)
Case Outcome: The defence of Volenti non fit injuria FAILED. The court ruled that the spectator did not consent to the occupier’s negligence regarding the failure to take proper safety precautions with the barrier ropes.