Mallory - One damn thing after another.

[JimW]

Spectator injury to one eye - Court case.

http://www.nuneaton-news.co.uk/Spect...ail/story.html

Don't know if this will affect BARC now their operating company is in liquidation.

Jim

[mark_l]

I can see Perspex screens being put up around all gravel traps in case someone goes off and showers the gravel, either that or issue a free pair of safety specs to every spectator and official.

[MGDavid]

...so how does this square with what's written on the back of every ticket and entry form?

[JimW]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

...so how does this square with what's written on the back of every ticket and entry form?

Mainly because what is written on the back of forms etc. is of little or no validity in cases like this. The argument might go something like "Is reasonably likely that these cars will throw up stones? - Yes it's Rally cross on loose surface. Is it likely that such stones would reach a spectator are? - Yes. Well you have exposed people to a reasonably foreseeable risk and have not taken appropriate counter measures. ££££

We may think that a pity but it's the law.

Regards

Jim

[grantp]

So where would something like this leave a risk assessment for a stage rally?

Thinking further ahead - when will competitors in potentially risky events be prevented from taking part for their own good?

We could start with Marathons (so many amateurs with no real clue about what they are undertaking) and head on through Ironman competitions, any form of off road cycling, especially MTB related, riding horses (for any purpose at all) and of course skiing.

[JimW]

I don't really disagree but there are crucial differences between "participants" and spectators. Even then, if participants were put at "unnecessary" or inappropriate risk, I'd hate to be responsible.

And as for a Rally stage; there was one at Donington many years ago where a spectator was injured by a flying stone and, if my memory is correct, won the case for damages.

Jim

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by JimW

I don't really disagree but there are crucial differences between "participants" and spectators. Even then, if participants were put at "unnecessary" or inappropriate risk, I'd hate to be responsible.

And as for a Rally stage; there was one at Donington many years ago where a spectator was injured by a flying stone and, if my memory is correct, won the case for damages.

Jim

More importantly where does this leave gravel traps...using the same argument, circuits put gravel traps beyond the Tarmac, closer to the spectators with the risk of stones flying through the catch fencing into the crowd.....I've seen it happen!

[GORDON STREETER]

Looks like it's best to stop in bed and watch everything on the box !
The ambulance chasers seem to sod everything up !!!

[flagwaver]

If people read the whole story they have got a better understanding of why the prosecution happened.

When they created the rallycross track at mallory, just before the startline they created a "rough area" as part of that circuit. Thus moving the "circuit" closer to the spectators.
What they should have done but didn't was to move the spectator area further back at that particular point.

A similar prosecution is unlikely to occur on a rally stage as it is generally not a "fixed venue" Hence why the instance at Donington that Jim talked about would unlikely to be applied to a forest stage in Keilder for instance

[andy97]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

...so how does this square with what's written on the back of every ticket and entry form?

You can't predict where and when accidents at race circuits will occur, or the severity, but circuits/ organisers are expected to make a judgement and mitigate risk accordingly, hence the separation of spectators from very close to track side. However, I guess the point of the note on the back of the ticket is that it covers unintended consequences in a sport where accidents do happen - circuits/ organisers will make their most reasonable endeavours to make it safe but every eventuality cannot be covered.

In this case, it may have been reasonable to predict that stones would get thrown up on the rally bit of the rallycross track and the circuit/ organisers should have taken measures to mitigate that risk - ie move the spectators back a distance. They didn't. In fact the spectators were closer to the track then when normal circuit racing occurred, but the risks of something being dislodged and going into the crowd were higher.

Circuits/organisers do have a responsibility to make the circuits a safe as practicably possible and to reduce risk to as low as reasonably possible.

Where do the MSA stand in this? presumably someone licenced the track and deemed it safe?

[Asp]

flagwaver has hit the nail on the head here - the obligation under the HSA is to limit exposure to risk "so far as reasonably practical".

Having a live circuit with significant risk of "spray" from stones near to spectators isn't limiting that exposure.

A gravel trap is different - cars shouldn't be going there and, even if they do, "spray" isn't likely to be directed towards spectators.

A rally stage is different - bigger length and less spectator density makes it less reasonable to offer protection (but there's still excluded areas where the risk is higher). A closed circuit has got less of an area that needs considering.

I don't think this really changes anything - the law is not different - it's just critical that circuits, clubs and the MSA (which is a great point raised by andy) need to monitor the situation, perform risk assessments at correct times, and take what action they feel is appropriate.

[yesnomaybe]

poor chap

Sounds like the problem area is the gravel section to the side of the normal start and finish straight. This bit of track can be seen near the control towers shadow on the image in the web site page linked to in post 1

I guess this explains why they'd fenced off a big section of the spectator area at that point of the track, for the event in 2013

"motorsport is dangerous, so you are present at your own risk" from a legal stand point, even though they made a change to the circuit route, i cant understand how they can ignore this, those notices would have been up and the same thing on the guys admission ticket

you can still be pelted by gravel if a car goes off, at clearways for example, you learn to turn away

[JimW]

Originally Posted by yesnomaybe

. . .
"motorsport is dangerous, so you are present at your own risk" from a legal stand point, even though they made a change to the circuit route, i cant understand how they can ignore this, those notices would have been up and the same thing on the guys admission ticket. . .

In order to understand this you just need to read some of the contributions above.

Jim

[Tim Falce]

I think I may have missed the point of this thread, "One damn thing after another". I don't see how It's going to affect Mallory apart from they might have to get their act together regards the rally track, if It's going to be used again that is.
Probably inevitable that someone would be prosecuted under elf an safety, who foots the bill for the fine is another matter. Next step will be a compensation claim which will be handled by MPMS's insurers, apart from that I can't see an issue.

[JimW]

My main point was to share information. But reputational damage by (unfair) association) is never a good thing.

And I guess the MSA's insurers will be footing the bill, assuming, of course, that everything was in accordance with the track licence, permit etc.

Regards

Jim

[andy97]

The MSA are not in the dock, although I guess they may be called as a witnesses. The Operators don't exist anymore but the Promoters (Lydden Hill) do and they are named in the action along with Amy Doran specifically.

Doubt that the MSA insurers will be involved. I am no expert but surely it will be the Public Liability Insurers for Lydden Hill and Amy Doran herself who will have to pay out IF it's found that there is a compensation case to anwser

[JimW]

The public liability insurance for an MSA permitted event (which I am assuming this was) is provided by the MSA through the permit fees which clubs pay. It's one of the key things which the MSA does.

Regards

Jim

[yesnomaybe]

I've have read the entire thread Jim, bit presumptious and rude for you to suggest otherwise, my point is that when it gets to court they'll definitely look at those "present at your own risk" statements as a reason not to pay up

[flagwaver]

THIS IS NOT A CLAIM FOR INJURY (although that may happen) This is a prosecution brought under the Health & Safety at Work act.

If there is a claim now I suspect it will follow the lines of "because they failed to adhere to the HSAWA 1974 my client was injured" What is said on a bit of paper or stated anywhere else on the circuit will not apply as they haven't adhered to the the law of the land.

Otherwise I could just leave a live wire exposed at work, but just make sure there are plenty signs saying you are here at your own risk.

[JimW]

Originally Posted by flagwaver

THIS IS NOT A CLAIM FOR INJURY (although that may happen) This is a prosecution brought under the Health & Safety at Work act.

If there is a claim now I suspect it will follow the lines of "because they failed to adhere to the HSAWA 1974 my client was injured" What is said on a bit of paper or stated anywhere else on the circuit will not apply as they haven't adhered to the the law of the land.

Otherwise I could just leave a live wire exposed at work, but just make sure there are plenty signs saying you are here at your own risk.

That's exactly the point (fact?) I was trying to make.

Jim

[medius]

Did anyone read the article?

''Mallory Park (Motorsport) Ltd pleaded guilty to failing to conduct its undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that spectators were not exposed to a risk to their safety arising from the event, in contravention of Section 3 of the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974.

Sentence on the company, which has been in administration since the beginning of October 2013, has been adjourned until after the conclusion of further court hearings relating to the incident.''

I take that as, the old operators were in the dock and held their hands up. Nothing to do with the new operators, nothing to do with the current venue. I don't think Rallycross has been mentioned in the new business plan, so its reasonable to assume RX won't be coming back to Mallory for changes to need to be made.

[Pescara Productions]

Sadly I think this may put the Rallycross scene off Mallory which is a huge shame as it has been the best event I've gone to since it started and it bought in good crowds. I think I was stood close to a Marshall when someone said over his radio that there had been an injury, then they put up some tape around the area which has been there at every RX meeting since I think. I film at the exit of Edwina's and I'm still pretty close to the track. There's been a few close encounter's with the late Ryan Lawford's rolling up on the fence, as well as one of the Tigra's flicking up a massive piece of earth that landed just beside my feet. I just hope the new owners don't go catch fence crazy.