Defendants' duty not to expose plaintiff to reasonably foreseeable danger

Marcelle Baldwin v Grainne Foy and Forest Way Riding Holidays Limited.

Negligence - Breach of duty - Accident at riding school - Whether plaintiff had been exposed to risk of injury which was reasonably foreseeable but not normally inherent in undergoing instruction at riding school - Whether defendants could rely on provisions of disclaimer notices.

The High Court (before Miss Justice Laffoy); judgment delivered 1 July 1997.

While a plaintiff who participates in a risky sport accepts the normal hazards and dangers inherent therein, a defendant will be guilty of a breach of duty if the plaintiff has been exposed to a danger which was reasonably foreseeable but not normally inherent in participation in the sport.

The High Court so held in finding the defendants negligent and in breach of their duty of care towards the plaintiff, in failing to provide a fence to separate the cross-country course, on which they were giving the plaintiff riding instruction, from the rough, boggy terrain around it.

Thomas Francis Roe SC, Aongus O'Brolchain SC and Isolde McKenna BL for the plaintiff; Patrick Keane SC and Bernard McDonagh BL for the defendants.

Miss Justice Laffoy said that the plaintiff had issued proceedings claiming damages for injuries and loss she had sustained as a result of a riding accident at the second defendant's riding establishment, which was under the management and control of the first defendant. The plaintiff had not ridden for approximately 16 to 17 years when she first went to the riding centre on 3 November 1990. The accident occurred on 17 November 1990 during the plaintiff's fourth visit to the premises and took place when the plaintiff was riding on the cross-country course. The cross-country course was part of a tract of land comprising 22 acres. The course covered approximately 12 acres of the tract and consisted of a number of jumps. The remaining ground was boggy, uneven terrain with a stream containing boulders and stones running through it.

With regard to the circumstances of the accident, Miss Justice Laffoy said that she accepted the plaintiff's evidence that her horse had bolted at a sudden hailstorm and had galloped off out of control onto the uneven terrain, until the plaintiff was thrown off into the stream, injuring her spine. Miss Justice Laffoy said that she was satisfied that the horse in question did not have a propensity to bolt and that its harness had included a neck strap.

Miss Justice Laffoy said that horse riding and jumping was a risky sport and that in participating in this sport the plaintiff had accepted the normal hazards and dangers inherent therein. Therefore the question which she had to determine was whether the defendants had exposed the plaintiff to a risk of injury which was reasonably foreseeable but not normally inherent in cross-country riding in an equestrian centre. On the basis of expert evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, Miss Justice Laffoy was satisfied that the absence of a physical boundary or fence segregating the cross-county course from the boggy terrain below it, rendered the cross-country course unsafe for instructing novices in that particular discipline. Had a fence been in situ, it was unlikely that that the horse would have jumped it and it would have contained the horse and rider within safe terrain. Accordingly the defendants had been negligent and in breach of their duty of care to the plaintiff.

The defendants sought to rely on two notices which disclaimed liability for any accidents which might occur and which were posted in the stable block of their premises. The notices were headed "AIRE" (Association of Irish Riding Establishments) and Miss Justice Laffoy found that neither was open to the construction that the defendants, as opposed to AIRE, were disclaiming liability for negligence and breach of duty. Having found there had been no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, Miss Justice Laffoy did find that the plaintiff had been guilty of failing to mitigate her loss and took this into account when awarding total damages of £56,000.

Solicitors: Ken J. Byrne & Co. (Dublin) for the plaintiff; Paul W. Tracey (Dublin) for the defendants.