The claimant, a professional jockey, had been injured when he was unseated as a result of manoeuvres by two fellow jockeys. At trial the judge identified five principles: ‘[1] Each contestant in a lawful sporting contest (and in particular a race) owes a duty of care to each and all other contestants. [2] That duty is to exercise in the course of the contest all care that is objectively reasonable in the prevailing circumstances for the avoidance of infliction of injury to such fellow contestants. [3] The prevailing circumstances are all such properly attendant upon the contest and include its object, the demands inevitably made upon its contestants, its inherent dangers (if any), its rules, conventions and customs, and the standards, skills and judgment reasonably to be expected of a contestant. Thus in the particular case of a horse race the prevailing circumstances will include the contestant’s obligation to ride a horse over a given course competing with the remaining contestants for the best possible placing, if not for a win. Such must further include the Rules of Racing and the standards, skills and judgment of a professional jockey, all as expected by fellow contestants. [4] Given the nature of such prevailing circumstances the threshold for liability is in practice inevitably high; the proof of a breach of duty will not flow from proof of no more than an error of judgment or from mere proof of a momentary lapse in skill (and thus care) respectively when subject to the stresses of a race. Such are no more than incidents inherent in the nature of sport. [5] In practice it may therefore be difficult to prove any such breach of duty absent proof of conduct that in point of fact amounts to reckless disregard for the fellow contestant’s safety. I emphasise the distinction between the expression of legal principle and the practicalities of the evidential burden.’
Held: The formulation was correct.
The fact that a jockey has ridden his horse in breach of the rules of racing does not decide the issue of liability and, while non-compliance with the rules, conventions or customs is necessarily a consideration to be attended to upon the question of reasonableness, it is only one consideration, and it may be of much or little or even no weight in the circumstances of a particular race.
The threshold for liability was high: ‘there will be no liability for errors of judgment, oversights or lapses of which any participant might be guilty in the context of a fast-moving contest. Something more serious is required. I do not think it is helpful to say any more than this in setting the standard of care to be expected in cases of this kind.’
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales,
(The Lord Woolf of Barnes),
Lord Justice Judge,
And,
Lord Justice Tuckey
[2001] EWCA Civ 1054, [2002] PIQR P6
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Harrison v Vincent 1982
A sidecar passenger sued the motorcycle driver for injuries sustained during a race when he was unable to stop because he missed his gear and his brakes failed at the same time.
Held: The court approved the Wooldridge approach as the . .
Cited – Condon v Basi CA 30-Apr-1985
The parties were playing football. The defendant executed a late dangerous and foul tackle on the plaintiff breaking his leg. The defendant was sent off, and the plaintiff sued.
Held: Those taking part in competitive sport still owed a duty of . .
Cited – Wooldridge v Sumner CA 1963
A spectator was injured at a horse show.
Held: The court considered the defence of volenti non fit injuria: ‘The maxim in English law presupposes a tortious act by the defendant. The consent that is relevant is not consent to the risk of . .
Cited – Wilks v Cheltenham Homeguard Motor Cycle and Light Car Club CA 1971
The plaintiff was a spectator at a motorcycle scramble race, and was injured.
Held: Edmund Davies LJ said: ‘although in the very nature of things the competitor is all out to win and that is exactly what the spectators expect of him, it is in . .
Cited – Smoldon v Whitworth and Nolan CA 17-Dec-1996
The claimant sued another player and the referee at a colts rugby match in which he was badly injured when the scrum collapsed. The claim against the player was dismissed, but the referee was found liable and he now appealed.
Held: The . .
Cited – Caldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald CA 27-Jun-2001
The claimant, a professional jockey, had been injured when he was unseated as a result of manoeuvres by two fellow jockeys. At trial the judge identified five principles: ‘[1] Each contestant in a lawful sporting contest (and in particular a race) . .
Cited by:
Cited – Blake v Galloway CA 25-Jun-2004
The claimant was injured whilst playing about with other members of his band throwing sticks at each other. The defendant appealed against a denial of his defence on non fit injuria.
Held: The horseplay in which the five youths were engaged . .
Cited – Caldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald CA 27-Jun-2001
The claimant, a professional jockey, had been injured when he was unseated as a result of manoeuvres by two fellow jockeys. At trial the judge identified five principles: ‘[1] Each contestant in a lawful sporting contest (and in particular a race) . .
Cited – Tylicki v Gibbons QBD 21-Dec-2021
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence
Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.188804