Daniels v Boardman - [2015] ACTMC 3

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Daniels v Boardman
Citation:	[2015] ACTMC 3
Hearing Date(s):	1 September and 17 December 2014
DecisionDate:	10 February 2015
Before:	Magistrate Morrison
Decision:	[105]
Category:	Principal judgment
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW – damages for personal injury resulting from kick by horse – alleged negligent control of horse ridden by defendant – whether conduct of defendant a breach of duty of care – lookout required of defendant – contributory negligence by plaintiff – assessment of damages
Legislation Cited: Cases Cited: Texts Cited: Parties:	Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 40, 42 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5R Civil Liability (Animals) Act 1984 (ACT) s 6 Lindsay-Field v Three Chimneys Farm Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 436 Eagle v Chambers [2004] RTR 115 Thompsonv Bankstown Corporation (1953) 87 CLR 619 J Fleming, The Law of Torts, (10^th ed, Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited, 2011) Karen May Daniels (Plaintiff) Noel Frederick Boardman (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S Hausfeld (Plaintiff) Mr Nolan and Mr J Pappas (Defendant) Solicitors Snedden Hall & Gallop (Plaintiff) DLA Piper (Defendant)
File Number:	CS 599 of 2013

The plaintiff’s claim is for damages for personal injury which she suffered as a result of being kicked by a horse under the control of the defendant.

Her claim is based in negligence.

It is not in dispute that:

a.the plaintiff was kicked by the horse and suffered injury as a result; and
b.the horse was under the control of the defendant at the relevant time.

It was not suggested in addresses that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff.

The defendant denies any negligence and says that if he was then any consequences for the plaintiff were contributed to by her own negligence.

There is no agreement as to quantum although there is not much by way of dispute on the evidence about the consequential effects on the plaintiff of the injuries suffered by her.

The plaintiff’s claim is governed by the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT). Relevantly:

a.Section 40 of the Act defines negligence as meaning failure to exercise reasonable care and skill; and
b.Section 42 provides that in deciding whether the defendant was negligent, the standard of care required of the defendant is that of a reasonable person in the defendant's position who was in possession of all the information that the defendant either had, or ought reasonably to have had, at the time of the incident out of which the harm arose.

The evidence before me on the question of liability comprises the oral testimony of the plaintiff and Ms Jeanette Evans and of the defendant as well as documentary evidence comprising some photographs and maps or sketches and an incident report.

By way of summary, the plaintiff said this in her oral testimony:

a.She is a member of the Vikings Triathlon Club. On 3 December 2011 she was out doing some cycle training with a fellow member…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Daniels v Boardman and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] ACTMC 3
Decision Date: 10 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Daniels v Boardman involved a dispute between the plaintiff, who claimed to have suffered personal injuries as a result of a horse-kick incident, and the defendant, who was the rider of the horse. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had negligently controlled the horse, leading to the incident. The matter was heard in the Civil Court where the primary issues were whether the defendant's conduct amounted to a breach of the duty of care owed, whether the defendant was required to keep a proper lookout, and if the plaintiff was contributory negligent in any way. Additionally, the court had to assess the damages payable to the plaintiff.

The court considered whether the defendant had breached the duty of care by negligently controlling the horse. The analysis involved determining the standard of care expected of a horse rider and whether the defendant met this standard. The court also examined whether the defendant should have been more vigilant in maintaining a lookout for the plaintiff, given the circumstances. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the plaintiff's actions contributed to the incident, potentially reducing the defendant's liability. In evaluating the damages, the court looked at the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and their impact on the plaintiff's life.

The court found that the defendant had indeed breached the duty of care by failing to properly control the horse, which was a significant factor in the incident. It was held that the defendant should have exercised greater vigilance and maintained a proper lookout, particularly in the context of the plaintiff's presence. The court also determined that the plaintiff was not contributory negligent, absolving them of any responsibility for the incident. The court calculated the damages based on the severity of the injuries and their impact on the plaintiff's quality of life, awarding the plaintiff a sum that reflected the full extent of their losses.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff damages in the amount determined, reflecting the full extent of the plaintiff's losses and suffering. The defendant was also liable for any additional costs incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the incident. This comprehensive decision provided clarity on the issues of duty of care, lookout, contributory negligence, and the assessment of damages in personal injury cases involving horses.

Orders

Orders of the court

[105]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.