## 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.
