LETTER | In recent weeks, the Malaysian running community has been shaken by two troubling incidents.

At the Boom Run 2025 in Putrajaya, held on Sept 7, several 10km runners were misdirected by marshals or Rela personnel and ended up running nearly 17km. For some, this mistake cost them a podium finish, while others endured unnecessary physical strain.

On the same day, during the Melaka International Marathon 2025, runner Cayson Wong was struck by a vehicle at around the 13.5km mark, leaving him with head injuries and abrasions.

As both a runner and a lawyer, these stories hit close to home. They serve as a stark reminder that behind every race bib is a runner who places their trust in organisers to deliver a safe, well-managed event.

They also raise important questions about the duty of care, negligence, and the legal responsibilities of those who plan and deliver mass-participation races in Malaysia.

Waivers, ‘absolute discretion’ clauses not invincible

The Boom Run incident illustrates how a simple miscommunication or lack of volunteer training can escalate into something far more serious.

In running events, the event’s marshals, Rela personnel, and volunteers would act as agents of the organiser, and that would mean their mistakes should ultimately reflect on the event team.

Sending runners on the wrong route is not an inherent risk of racing and, in my opinion, is a preventable error.

Many race organisers rely on race regulation waivers or terms granting them “absolute discretion” over the race.

However, these clauses rarely hold water if negligence is proven. Most waivers include clauses stating that participants enter at their own risk and cannot sue the organiser, but Malaysian law takes a careful approach to such disclaimers.

Generally, Malaysian courts are reluctant to enforce disclaimers that attempt to shield organisers from their own lack of care.

Section 29 of the Contracts Act 1950 says any agreement that absolutely prevents legal action is void, and in one landmark case, the Federal Court struck down a contract clause that would have made any lawsuit an exercise of futility.

This principle should also apply to race waivers: a clause that completely absolves organisers of responsibility may be unenforceable.

If a runner can demonstrate that a podium finish or prize money was lost because of a marshal’s mistake, there may be a valid claim for losses and damages.

Runners sign up expecting to face the elements, fatigue, and unpredictable weather, but not to be led astray due to errors by the officials on a sanctioned course.

Put plainly: if organisers or their agents fail in basic duties, a waiver will not automatically protect them.

Waivers are intended to protect organisers against ordinary race risks, not gross negligence, fraud, or systemic failures.

For example, Clause 23 of the Melaka International Marathon 2025 published rules stated that participants run at their own risk and that “the organiser… shall not be liable for any death or injury, loss or damage… howsoever arising.” 

While this sounds like a total shield, it should not override the organiser’s fundamental duties.

If traffic control measures, course barricades, or marshal briefings fell short, the courts may not enforce this type of disclaimer.

Organisers must assume that their actions will be scrutinised: did they take reasonable steps to secure the race route, coordinate with authorities, and provide medical support? Waiver or not, the law will likely prioritise safety obligations over contractual fine print.

It’s also important to note that participants and runners usually have no bargaining power over these terms - they must sign or they have to forfeit entry.

Lessons for future events

Both organisers and runners should heed these lessons. Organisers must go beyond paper disclaimers and genuinely ensure safety. Such incidents underline that roads must be secured and volunteers properly briefed.

Runners should see that “reasonable precautions”, as promised by organisers, actually happen: all turns are marshalled by people who know the route, traffic is barred, and medical staff are on standby.

Participants should still fill out waivers, but not assume it means they have no recourse. If they are misdirected or injured due to organisational neglect, they should still be able to pursue a claim.

On the flip side, organisers should document all safety measures and educate their agents clearly. Again, even volunteer helpers or Rela personnel act as agents of the organiser, so any mistakes they make may bind the organisers legally.

Ultimately, road races are community events born of shared passion. It is in everyone’s interest that they proceed fairly and safely. Organisers should treat every runner’s welfare as paramount, not just because of possible lawsuits, but out of respect.

Participants, in turn, should stay alert and speak up if something seems unsafe or wrong. When mistakes happen, the best response is to fix the problem and care for those affected, not only to rely on legal jargon in fine print.

As an avid runner, I cross that finish line knowing all the sweat and training that went in. As a lawyer, I understand that every metric (and every life) is precious.

For clarity, this is not about casting blame on any one person; we all share responsibility. I speak not to shame organisers or marshals, but genuinely to advocate safety.

In the end, justice on the road does not mean rushing to court at every mishap. I call on our endurance sports industry to embrace a culture of excellence and accountability.

The thrill of competition shouldn’t come with fears, and the running community should work together so that every race ends with cheers and high-fives on the podium, not fear or litigation in the courtroom.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.