Legal Research
Cases
Goode v Angland

Goode v Angland

Case [2016] NSWSC 1014 22 July 2016

Negligence

Causation

Compensatory Damages

Dangerous Recreational Activity

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Goode v Angland [2016] NSWSC 1014
Hearing dates: 6-8, 12-15 October, 16-19, 24, 25, 27 November 2015
Date of orders: 22 July 2016
Decision date: 22 July 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Verdict for the defendant.

Catchwords: TORT – negligence – personal injury – jockey injured in fall from horse during country race meeting – whether defendant negligently caused or permitted his horse to take plaintiff’s running – whether plaintiff’s horse advanced into a position of danger – Civil Liability Act 2002 s 5K – dangerous recreational activity – whether recreational activity includes professional horseracing
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Cases Cited: Appo v Stanley [2010] QSC 383
Belna Pty Ltd t/a Fernwood Fitness Centre Parramatta v Irwin [2009] NSWCA 46
Caldwell v Maguire [2001] EWCA (Civ) 1054
Dodge v Snell [2011] TASSC 19
Grassi v Brandt (1986) Aust Torts Reports 80-010
Johnston v Frazer (1990) 21 NSWLR 89
Kliese v Pelling [1998] QSC 112
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery [2007] HCA 6; (2007) 230 CLR 22
Moloughney v Wellington Racing Club [1935] NZLR 800
Motorcycling Events Group Australia Pty Ltd v Kelly [2013] NSWCA 361
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1988] HCA 28; (1988) 194 CLR 355
Roads and Traffic Authority v Dederer (2007) 238 ALR 761
Rootes v Shelton [1967] HCA 39; (1967) 116 CLR 383
Swain v Waverley Municipal Council [2005] HCA 4; (2005) 220 CLR 517
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 9; (2002) 208 CLR 460
Wooldridge v Sumner [1963] 2 QB 43
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Paul Goode (Plaintiff)
Tye Angland (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A J Bartley SC with F Toscana (Plaintiff)
J Sexton SC with D Lloyd (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Ken Cush & Associates (Plaintiff)
Lee and Lyons Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2012/190052
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 29 June 2009, Mr Goode was riding a horse named Shot of the Rails in race 7 over 1640 metres at the Queanbeyan Racecourse. Mr Angland was a jockey riding Port Gallery in the same race. Shortly after the start of the race Mr Goode was thrown from his mount when it fell. Mr Goode sustained catastrophic injuries which have left him confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life.
Mr Goode alleges in these proceedings that his injuries, loss and damage were caused by Mr Angland’s negligence or breach of duty by riding in such a manner as to cause interference to Mr Goode and his mount. Mr Angland denies these allegations.

Background

In the events that occurred, the actual incident that gives rise to these proceedings, as well as the events immediately preceding and succeeding it, are captured on video by a series of cameras located at various points around the Queanbeyan Racecourse. These video recordings, as well as a large series of still pictures derived from them, became evidence in these proceedings. It will be…

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 Goode v Angland

Details

AGLC: Goode v Angland [2016] NSWSC 1014
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1014
Decision Date: 22 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a jockey, Goode, who was injured during a country race meeting. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Angland, was negligent in the way he controlled his horse, leading to the plaintiff's fall. Goode sought compensation for his injuries, claiming that Angland's actions or omissions caused or permitted his horse to take the plaintiff’s running, resulting in a dangerous situation. The court was tasked with determining whether Angland's conduct amounted to negligence and if the plaintiff's horse had advanced into a position of danger due to the defendant's actions. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the activity of professional horseracing qualified as a "dangerous recreational activity" under the Civil Liability Act 2002.

The primary legal issue the court addressed was whether Angland's control of his horse during the race constituted negligence that led to Goode's injury. The court needed to assess the standard of care expected from jockeys in a professional racing context and determine whether Angland's actions fell below this standard. Furthermore, the court had to decide if the plaintiff's horse had moved into a position of danger as a result of Angland's conduct, and if so, whether this movement contributed to the accident. Another significant aspect was whether professional horseracing could be classified as a dangerous recreational activity under the Civil Liability Act 2002, which would potentially limit the liability of participants.

The court found that Angland's conduct did not amount to negligence, as he had taken all reasonable steps to control his horse during the race. The court determined that the plaintiff's horse did not advance into a position of danger due to Angland's actions. Additionally, the court held that professional horseracing did not constitute a dangerous recreational activity under the Civil Liability Act 2002. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the court found in favour of the defendant. The judge ruled that Angland had not acted negligently and that the activity of professional horseracing did not fall within the scope of the statutory provisions limiting liability for dangerous recreational activities.

Orders