What happened

A relatively inexperienced rider injured her left ankle in a lesson on 26 March 2010. Evidence from the previous owner and a witness who saw the bridle before and after the lesson supported findings that the instructor knew of the sensitivity, tightened the equipment and thereby caused the fall.

The issues

The issues were whether the adjustment was negligent and whether obvious risk, inherent risk or voluntary assumption of risk defeated the claim. The court also considered whether the rider's failure expressly to repeat the warning contributed to the accident.

The court's decision

The instructor failed to take simple precautions, such as gradual adjustment or asking the rider to dismount. The defences failed, and there was no contributory reduction: the rider did not know how far the bridle had been tightened, while the instructor already knew of the sensitivity. Judgment and costs were awarded to the rider.

Understanding the figures

The historical AUD judgment was $334,734 without a contributory reduction. It included $80,000 for non-economic loss and $120,000 for future economic loss. Costs were ordered separately, with seven days to seek a different costs order.

What this case shows

An injury during recreation does not itself answer the liability question. This decision identifies the risk that actually materialised and connects the instructor's prior knowledge with practical precautions.

Why another case may differ

This was a trial decision under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) concerning a 2010 accident. The dangerous recreational activity defence under s 5L was not permitted because it had not been pleaded; the decision does not establish that defence can never apply to riding. Unrelated conditions, including the hip problem, were distinguished in assessing loss.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →