McDermott v Woods - [2015] NSWDC 27

District Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	McDermott v Woods
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWDC 27
Hearing Date(s):	13 – 17 October 2014 and 21 – 23 October 2014
Decision Date:	13 February 2015
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Bozic SC DCJ
Decision:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $334,734. 2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs. 3. The exhibits are to be returned. 4. The parties have leave to apply within 7 days if either party wishes to seek a different costs order.
Catchwords:	NEGLIGENCE – plaintiff injured during horse-riding lesson – whether instructor knew of horse’s sensitivity to tight equipment around nose and mouth – whether instructor tightened bridle during lesson – whether accident due to rider error – nature of risk – whether risk foreseeable. NEGLIGENCE – defences – nature of risk – whether risk inherent risk or obvious risk – volenti non fit injuria – whether plaintiff fully appreciated and voluntarily accepted risk – contributory negligence – whether plaintiff’s negligence contributed to occurrence or the nature or the extent of the injury. DAMAGES – non-economic loss – future economic loss – past and future domestic assistance
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 5B, 5C, 5D, 5F, 5G, 5H, 5I, 5R, 13 and 15
Cases Cited:	Carey v Lake Macquarie City Council [2007] NSWCA 4 Davis v Swift [2014) NSWCA 458 CG Maloney Pty Ltd v Hutton Potts [2006] NSWCA 136 Kallouf v Middis [2008] NSWCA 61 Nemeth v Westfield Shopping Centre Co Management Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 298 Watson v Meyer [2013] NSWCA 243
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Elizabeth Pearl McDermott (plaintiff) Milea Woods (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: H Marshall SC/M Gilbert (plaintiff) S Glascott (defendant) Solicitors: Jordan Djundja Lawyers (plaintiff) Yeldham Price O’Brien Lusk (defendant)
File Number(s):	2013/120516

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

On 26 March 2010 the plaintiff was injured during a horse riding lesson with the defendant. The defendant is a riding instructor. The plaintiff was a relatively inexperienced rider. The plaintiff’s horse, Star, was a gentle mare who was suitable for inexperienced riders. She did not, however, like tight equipment being fitted around her nose and mouth.
During the lesson on 26 March 2010 the plaintiff began to experience problems controlling Star’s behaviour when transitioning from a trot to a canter. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant called her over and tightened Star’s bridle to the tightest notch despite knowing that Star did not like tight equipment over her nose and mouth.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s act of tightening the bridle to the tightest notch caused Star to misbehave. The plaintiff lost control of Star and fell off the horse injuring her left ankle.
The plaintiff says that the defendant knew of Star’s sensitivity to tight equipment as a result of a conversation between the defendant and Star’s previous owner, Belinda Smithers, as well as conversations between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendant knew of Star’s sensitivity as a result of a previous…

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 McDermott v Woods

Details

AGLC: McDermott v Woods [2015] NSWDC 27
Case: [2015] NSWDC 27
Decision Date: 13 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of McDermott v Woods involved a claim for damages resulting from an injury sustained by the plaintiff, Ms. McDermott, during a horse-riding lesson. Ms. McDermott alleged that she was injured when the horse, which was being ridden under the instruction of the defendant, Mr. Woods, became distressed and bolted. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Mr. Woods had knowledge of the horse’s sensitivity to tight equipment around its nose and mouth, whether he had tightened the bridle during the lesson, and whether the accident was due to Ms. McDermott's error. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the risk involved was an inherent risk or an obvious risk, and if Ms. McDermott had fully appreciated and voluntarily accepted this risk. The court also needed to consider whether Ms. McDermott's own negligence contributed to the occurrence or the extent of her injuries.

The court found that Mr. Woods had knowledge of the horse's sensitivity to tight equipment and had tightened the bridle during the lesson, which directly contributed to the horse's distress. The court held that this was a breach of duty on the part of Mr. Woods. Regarding the nature of the risk, the court concluded that while the risk was inherent in horse riding, it was not an obvious risk that would negate liability for negligence. The court also found that Ms. McDermott had not fully appreciated the risk, and therefore, the volenti defence did not apply. Additionally, the court ruled that Ms. McDermott’s contributory negligence did not bar her claim, as her actions did not significantly contribute to the accident or the extent of her injuries.

The court awarded Ms. McDermott damages for her non-economic loss, future economic loss, and past and future domestic assistance, totaling $334,734. Mr. Woods was ordered to pay these damages, as well as Ms. McDermott's costs. The exhibits were to be returned to the parties, and the court granted leave for either party to apply for a different costs order within seven days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $334,734.

2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

3. The exhibits are to be returned.

4. The parties have leave to apply within 7 days if either party wishes to seek a different costs order.

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.