White v Blackmore [1972] 2 QB 651

Facts

  • The plaintiff was injured during a motor racing event organized by the defendant.
  • The defendant relied on an exclusion notice displayed at the event, arguing that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risks associated with the activity.
  • The exclusion notice was displayed in a location that was not easily visible or accessible to participants.
  • The court examined whether the exclusion notice had been sufficiently communicated to the plaintiff and if it effectively excluded liability for negligence.

Issues

  1. Whether the exclusion notice was sufficiently brought to the plaintiff’s attention before participation in the event.
  2. Whether the exclusion notice covered liability for negligence or only the voluntary assumption of built-in risks.
  3. Whether the exclusion clause was valid and binding in limiting the liability of the event organizers.

Decision

  • The court found that the exclusion notice was not adequately communicated to the plaintiff.
  • The exclusion notice, as displayed, was not binding because it was not sufficiently brought to the attention of the participant prior to the event.
  • The exclusion notice did not specifically exclude liability for negligence due to lack of clarity and specificity in its wording.
  • The organizers could not rely on the exclusion notice to avoid liability for negligence.

Legal Principles

  • Exclusion clauses must be clearly communicated and brought to the attention of participants before they engage in the activity.
  • The doctrine of contractual consent requires parties to be aware of the terms they are agreeing to for an exclusion clause to be effective.
  • There is a distinction between voluntary assumption of natural risks and the duty of organizers to exercise reasonable care; exclusion clauses do not absolve organizers from liability for negligence unless expressly stated and communicated.
  • The enforceability of exclusion notices depends on clarity, timing of communication, and specificity in covering particular risks or liabilities.

Conclusion

The judgment in White v Blackmore [1972] 2 QB 651 clarified that exclusion notices at sporting events are only effective if communicated clearly and specifically prior to participation, and do not by default exclude liability for negligence unless expressly stated and adequately brought to the attention of participants.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal