Fairall v Hobbs

The appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Hobbs, appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the primary judge who had found them liable in negligence for injuries sustained by the respondent, Mr. Fairall. Mr. Fairall was thrown from his horse while riding along the side of a road, and the primary judge determined that a motor vehicle owned by the first appellant and driven by the second appellant had caused the horse to shy and buck, thereby causing Mr. Fairall's fall. The central dispute concerned whether the incident constituted a "motor accident" for the purposes of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW) and whether the appellants were negligent under the principles of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW).

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the appellants' motor vehicle caused the respondent's horse to shy and buck, and consequently, whether there was a "motor accident" as defined by the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW). Further, the court had to consider whether the elements of negligence, as prescribed by sections 5B and 5D of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), were established, and whether the incident could be characterised as a "blameless motor accident."

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the primary judge had erred in their determination. The court reasoned that the incident did not fall within the definition of a "motor accident" under the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW), as the vehicle's proximity to the horse, even if it caused the horse to react, did not constitute an "accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle" in the manner contemplated by the Act. The court also found that the requirements of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW) for establishing negligence were not met on the facts presented. Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the orders of the primary judge, dismissed the amended statement of claim, and ordered the respondent to pay the appellants' costs. The respondent's notice of cross-appeal was also dismissed with costs.