Malcolm Duthie recently represented Mr Steve Perez, the Claimant [C] at trial at the High Court in London, before Mr Charles Bagot KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, upon the issue of liability.
Mr Perez was a professional rally driver and is also a successful entrepreneur (he was the inventor of the drink VK). On 23rd June 2018, he was driving a Lancia Stratos HF rally car as a competitor in the Renties Ypres Historic Rally Event, a leg of the British Rally Championship held in Belgium. Vital Equipment Limited, the Defendant [D], provided refueling services at motorsports events and had been appointed as the Championship designated fuel supplier. The Rally was organised under the authority of the Motorsports Association (MSA) (now Motorsport UK), the governing body of 4-wheeled motorsport in the UK, and therefore D was subject to the rules and recommendations laid down by the MSA as well the rules as laid down by the FIA, the international governing body.
C drove his car into the refueling bay, underneath a gazebo-type structure and switched off the engine. It was his case that when D’s employees refueled the car, one of them caused fuel to be dispensed over the car’s body and windscreen. Before C was able to get out of the vehicle, the petrol ignited, the car became engulfed in flames and C sustained severe burn injuries. At hospital in Belgium, he remained in an induced coma for three weeks, underwent skin grafting and was then repatriated for specialist treatment at Sheffield. There remains disfiguring scarring, and he sustained vocal cord paralysis. He suffers from PTSD. These consequences of the injuries have had and will continue permanently to have a profound effect upon C.
D’s case was that when their employee loosened the filler cap, fuel within the fuel tank erupted and was jettisoned/ejected out of the fuel tank and then ignited. This was an unexpected and unavoidable accident. Although C argued that this account was implausible from an engineering perspective, D’s factual case was supported by five eyewitnesses each of whom gave evidence. There were 2 experts for each side in the fields of vehicle engineering and fire investigation.
In addition, C argued that however the accident had occurred D were under a duty to take reasonable care for his safety and that included the duty to ensure that he and his co-driver were told to leave the car before the refueling process was started. D argued that in 2018 drivers and co-drivers could remain in their car when refuelling but must release their seatbelts and that vacating a vehicle only became mandatory requirement of the MSA in 2020. Malcolm’s cross-examination of D’s witnesses elicited admissions that the FIA’s guidelines had always recommended as “best practice” that crew members should exit the vehicle before refuelling and that therefore the only realistic way to reduce the risk of injury to the lowest level reasonably practicable was for D to follow best practice and to require the driver and co-driver to leave the vehicle.
Late on day four of the trial D admitted breach of duty and therefore the case settled in C’s favour. Although the issue of how the accident occurred was not decided by the Judge, the admission of liability enables the case to proceed to the assessment of damages.
Press coverage:
Daredevil £50m Hooch tycoon is suing for more than £200k after he was left in a coma when rally car he was driving burst into flames during race – Daily Mail Online
Refuelling mishap turned rally car into a fireball, businessman claims – The Times
Malcolm Duthie was instructed by Simon O’Loughlin of Irwin Mitchell.