Judgment: 2017-01-13 · Court archive

High Court dismisses motocross injury claim after finding collision unavoidable

The court found that a flag marshal at the accident point might have been sensible, but could not have warned the following rider in time to prevent the collision.

High Court · [2017] IEHC 1

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Stephen Burke (Plaintiff)
  • Stephen Mullally
  • Michael McGinn
  • North Dublin Motocross Limited
What

The court found that a flag marshal at the accident point might have been sensible, but could not have warned the following rider in time to prevent the collision.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Gormanstown
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has dismissed Stephen Burke’s negligence claim over life-changing injuries he suffered in a motocross collision at Gormanstown, Co Meath, in January 2014. Mr Justice Hanna found that the crash was an unavoidable accident and that no negligent act by the defendants caused his injuries.

The High Court has dismissed Stephen Burke’s negligence claim over life-changing injuries he suffered in a motocross collision at Gormanstown, Co Meath, in January 2014. Mr Justice Hanna found that the crash was an unavoidable accident and that no negligent act by the defendants caused his injuries.

Mr Burke fell while negotiating a double jump during the final practice session of the day. Another rider, Stephen Mullally, was close behind and struck him as he was getting up. Mr Burke suffered severe chest and shoulder injuries, including a lasting brachial plexus injury, and the judgment said he would need some ongoing assistance for the rest of his life.

The claim was brought against Mr Mullally, North Dublin Motocross Limited, club chairman Michael McGinn and the Motorcycle Union of Ireland Limited, trading as Motorcycling Ireland. The case against Mr Mullally had already been dismissed at the close of Mr Burke’s case, because no ascertainable claim had been made against him. The remaining liability dispute concerned the track operators and governing bodies, including whether a marshal should have been stationed at marshal box MB11 near the jump.

The judge found that riders of different experience grades practising together was an approved and sensible policy. He also found that Mr Mullally was probably two to three seconds behind Mr Burke as they entered the straight and had reached the base of the jump as Mr Burke fell.

The evidence conflicted on whether a marshal at MB11 was required. The judge had doubts about the day’s marshal deployment and found club chairman Mr McGinn’s evidence on the issue confusing. He said common sense suggested a marshal at MB11 would have been a good idea, given the challenging jump and a possible blind spot on the course.

But the court concluded that, in the circumstances, a marshal could not have given Mr Mullally an effective warning: he was already too close when Mr Burke fell. The judge found there was no causal link between any failure to place a marshal there and the injuries. He dismissed Mr Burke’s claim against the remaining defendants.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review