Legal Research
Cases
Dodge v Snell

Dodge v Snell

Case [2011] TASSC 19 21 April 2011

Type to search within this case.

[2011] TASSC 19

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Dodge v Snell [2011] TASSC 19

PARTIES:  DODGE, Kevin John
  v
  SNELL, Simon

FILE NO/S:  430/2007
DELIVERED ON:  21 April 2011
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  16 – 19, 22, 23, 25 March 2010
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Torts – Negligence – Essentials of action for negligence – Duty of care – Special relationships and duties – Other cases – Breach of duty owed to fellow jockey.

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40; Rootes v Shelton (1967) 116 CLR 383; Kliese v Pelling [1998] QSC 112, discussed.
Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas), ss11, 12.
Aust Dig Torts [44]

Torts – The law of torts generally – Volenti non fit injuria – Three elements to be proven – Effect of Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas).

Carey v Lake Macquarie City Council [2007] NSWCA 4; Colin Ball v Transport Commission, B52/1991, discussed.
Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas), ss15, 16.
Aust Dig Torts [7]

Torts – Statutes, regulations, etc – Applicability and effect in actions for negligence – Generally – Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas), s19 – "Recreational activity" – Professional jockey injured – Interpretation – Natural meaning.

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384; Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; Falvo v Australian Oztag Sports Association (2006) NSWCA 17; Fallas v Mourlas [2006] NSWCA 32, discussed.
Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas), ss15, 18, 19, 20.
Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas), ss8A, 8B.
Aust Dig Torts [87]

Damages – Measure and remoteness of damages in actions for tort – Measure of damages – Personal injuries – Method of assessment – Generally – Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas) – Award of damages for gratuitous services – General damages – Reference to awards in other jurisdictions.

Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327; Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118, applied.
Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas), ss28, 28B.
Aust Dig Torts [32]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  K E Read and R Phillips
             Defendant:  P L Jackson
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Phillips Taglieri
             Defendant:  Wallace Wilkinson & Webster

Judgment Number: [2011] TASSC 19
Number of paragraphs: 499

Serial No 19/2011
File No 430/2007

KEVIN JOHN DODGE v SIMON SNELL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

21 April 2011

On 28 January 2007, the plaintiff, Kevin Dodge rode Oceano in the Moorilla Stakes at Elwick Racecourse. The defendant, Simon Snell, rode The Mighty West. Mr Snell drew the outside barrier. Soon after the start of the race Mr Snell started to cross to the rail. The rail was the shortest run to the finish. He safely crossed in front of two horses. Having done so he then had five horses to his inside with 3 at the front and two, including Mr Dodge's mount, racing close behind.…

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.

Continue reading Dodge v Snell

Details

AGLC: Dodge v Snell [2011] TASSC 19
Case: [2011] TASSC 19
Decision Date: 21 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Dodge v Snell, the plaintiff, Dodge, brought a claim against the defendant, Snell, for injuries sustained during a horse race. Dodge, a professional jockey, alleged that Snell, also a jockey, was negligent in his conduct during the race, leading to a collision that resulted in Dodge's injuries. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had to determine whether Snell owed a duty of care to Dodge and whether that duty was breached, causing the injuries.

The central legal issues revolved around the existence of a duty of care between fellow jockeys and whether such a duty, if found, was breached by Snell's conduct. The court was required to consider precedents from other cases, particularly those concerning special relationships and duties, to establish whether jockeys have a mutual duty of care towards each other. Additionally, the court had to examine whether Snell's actions fell below the standard expected of a reasonably prudent jockey in similar circumstances.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that jockeys, by virtue of their profession and the inherent risks involved, do owe each other a duty of care. The court reasoned that the unique nature of horse racing, where jockeys must work in close proximity and rely on each other's actions, necessitates a duty to avoid negligent conduct. The court concluded that Snell breached this duty by failing to maintain a safe distance and by making an abrupt move that caused the collision with Dodge. The court awarded damages to Dodge, holding Snell liable for the injuries sustained.

Orders