Could members of the forum please offer their opinions on this - If a motor racing club charges an annual fee for membership, and organises and plans race events at numerous different public racing facilities, using the circuit's own vehicles and racewear, does the club (who is making the bookings and scheduling the events, taking money and paying the circuit, whilst retaining a cut for awards and presentations etc) have any responsibility for ensuring that the circuit's systems, equipment and facilities are up to scratch? IE - checking the vehicles are in adequate condition, checking the safety precautions for spectators and participants are ok, etc. To me it is like using a contractor - the client has responsibility to ensure that the services it uses do not expose its staff or others to any unacceptable levels of risk. Similarly the club should be ensuring that the services of the circuit (including the karts themselves) should also not expose any club members to any unacceptable risks. Organisations of volunteers still have H&S responsibilities, just as employers do - do they not? If the club was to make checks of facilities or equipment (it doesn't at present for fear of becoming 'liable'), does it then become liable for any claims, should an incident occur? Would it be liable anyway whether it made any checks or not? I believe that the club has responsibilities just like any other voluntary organisation, or employer come to that, I am really after some other opinions to confirm before I go back Any advice that can be offered is most welcome, thanks very much indeed :)

Micklecats You can get some guidance on the issues arising in a recent decision of the Court of Appeal about the non-liability of the Jockey Club for injuries to a jockey who fell at the jump on a racecourse. Their judgment came after several years' litigation and was based on the CA's interpretation of the PUWER.

As a paying customer if I suffered injury at one of your events (for which I paid you) the first person in line to be sued by me would be you. If my injury was due to a breach of the duty of care you owed me then I would probably be successful. Put like that it may help explain to the club officers that they do indeed have responsibilities. Some liability may be contracted out to the track operator but as Ray states, some will likely remain.

Bob Y's advice is spot on. It always used to be that the insdurance cover was arranged so that all and every party that might incur liability would be protected. For example: The sport's governing body: e.g. RAC Motor Sports Assoc (they set the rules) The orgnasining club: they run the event The landowner or circuit owner: on whose land the event takes place The volunteer officials who actually run the event: The marshalls, the scrutineers etc It is not possible to say in advance who might have a liability. An injured person will generally sue everybody in the hope that one party will be found liable. Phil

Further to the above comment re employer, giving the commercial activity of the racing club described in the original post the organisation must be regarded as an employer. Even if they only use volunteers, these people are normally seen as employees from a health and safety perspective - therefore the organisation will have the duties of an employer.

Brian True, details are a bit scant. However, I will word my post slightly different - giving the activities of the organisation it's inconceivable that they do not employ people to manage finance, admin, etc. Hence the organisation will be an employer and liable pursuant to s2/3 HSWA. Moreover and assuming volunteers are used, they will be regarded as either employees for h&s purposes, or the organisation will be subject to s3 HSWA.

As Treasurer and long-time member of a vintage car club, I would have to say some of the comments made appear erroneous. There are plenty of clubs who manage large budgets without employing people - the assumption that "someone must be employed" is incorrect. Firstly: members of any club bear fully personal accountability for the club's activities. That's why we changed our club to a company limited by guarantee some years ago. That limits the personal liability of our members to £1. Secondly: The Club at the focus of the query have no paid employees, it seems, and no premises. On that basis neither S2 nor S3 of the HASAWA seem to apply. Thirdly: Any civil liability for the motor racing circuit will be regulated by the Occupier's Liability Act 1957. This sets out a protocol for the occupier's civil duty. Any civil claim would invariably be a "scattergun" action wherein the claimant's solicitors would seek to involve all parties in the claim and let them argue out who is liable. On that basis good insurance is needed. You can't rely on the circuit's insurance alone. There are of course many special arrangements for motorsport to regulate events. No doubt these will limit risk and any consequential liability.

Interesting topic. It comes down to Duty of Care - do you owe anyone a duty of care? There are arguments on either side. In my previous role in litigation, I have pursued claims against charities and the church. They are different issues from the one explained here, but it goes to show the extent that people are owed a duty of care. I have previously been members of motorcycle clubs. Depending on the nature and type of the organisation and how it is put together, some may argue that it is a group of individuals sharing a common interest. One could say that there is no difference if the activities in question were pursued by family and friends on a regular basis. In this case, as long as individuals had the appropriate insurances in place to cover personal liability there would be no problem. However, some will argue when you put structure and organisation in place this creates a situation whereby one could state a duty of care is owed. This is increased further if money swaps hands as part of being a member. A claimant solicitor will gather the basic details and look at who is possibly liable to send a Letter of Claim. If it doesn't stick with the first they will send it to the next party, and so on, until they are satisfied with a defendant who corresponds. An eager claimant firm could send a Letter of Claim to more than one party at the same time but this often yields little progress.

sadlass What I am trying to show is these situations are not as black and white as some people believe. I agree criminal law only applies where there is a prescribed duty. However, that in itself is not so simple...for example, in the case of Telford Steam Railway, a charitable organisation run by volunteers, the organisation was prosecuted pursuant to s33(1)(c) HSWA and fined £5000.

Dave I agree with you - hurrah! The whole concept is as clear as mud. There are many areas which have not even been discussed, such as ELI and the definition of an employee and the Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007, which applies to organisations incorporated under companies' legislation, public bodies incorporated by statute, organisations incorporated by Royal Charter, limited liability partnerships and most Crown bodies. I think the waters have been muddied further through some dubious prosecutions by both the regulators and the CPS. HSWA has been stretched to its limits - possibly its intentions. Hence we as practitioners have to tread very carefully through this minefield.