Cook v Riding for the Disabled Association (NSW)

In the matter of Cook v Riding for the Disabled Association (NSW), the plaintiff, who suffered from low intellectual function, distractibility, impulsivity and physical disabilities, claimed damages for injuries sustained when she fell from a horse during a recreational riding activity. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, the Riding for the Disabled Association, was negligent in its duty of care by failing to provide side walkers in close proximity during the ride. The central legal issues before the court involved the determination of whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and, if so, whether that duty was breached, and if the breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

The court considered whether the Riding for the Disabled Association owed a non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff during the riding activity. The court found that the riding activity was independent of the school, and the school-pupil relationship was not operative at the time of the accident. Given the independent nature of the riding activity, the court held that the Riding for the Disabled Association did not owe a non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court examined whether the failure to provide side walkers in close proximity constituted a breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The court found that the presence of side walkers would not have necessarily prevented the fall due to the plaintiff’s specific disabilities and the nature of the recreational riding activity. Consequently, the court determined that the Riding for the Disabled Association did not breach its duty of care.

The court concluded that the Riding for the Disabled Association was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The court emphasised that the social utility of the riding activity for the plaintiff was a significant factor in its decision. As the Riding for the Disabled Association did not breach its duty of care, the plaintiff’s claim for damages was dismissed. The court did not make any further orders in relation to the case.