Employer Found Not Liable For Negligence Following Horse Riding Accident
12/15/2021
Morrison v Oakden [2021] CSOH 96
A young woman who suffered severe injuries after a horse fell on her during the course of her employment lost her negligence claim against her employer heard in the Court of Sessions (Outer House).
Background to the claim
The Purser, P, was 17 years old at the time of the accident. She was employed by the Defender, D, as a stable hand. On the day of the accident, D instructed P to exercise a large horse that had been on box rest following an injury and had been prescribed a period of graduated return to physical activity. The horse was well trained and had previously competed at a high level. He had been walked in hand for six weeks and had been ridden again for the first time by his owner that morning.
On returning from the ride, the owner reported to P and D that the horse was ‘fresh’ and had jogged and reared. That afternoon, D instructed P to take the horse out. It reared again and P, in attempting to dismount, slid into a ditch. The horse subsequently fell on top of her.
P suffered serious maxillofacial injuries, a head injury, and a spinal fracture at S1. She started a bursary-funded nursing course; however, due to her injuries, she had to withdraw. P subsequently had to switch to a different course and take out a student loan.
The parties agreed on solatium at £50,000 with three quarters allocated to the past and interest thereon, £400 for lost wages for employment with D, £61,290 past wage loss from discontinuing the nursing degree, with interest of £7,355, and future wage loss of £1,877. Quantification for services rendered by P’s mother who had helped with her care immediately after the accident and loss of employability was not agreed upon. P sought a further £19,000 in respect of student loans for the alternate degree course.
P argued that it was known in the industry that box rest and recuperation following an injury can make horses difficult to manage and misbehave and riding the horse for the second time in a day was risky under such circumstances. Therefore, the horse should not have been ridden a second time, beyond the stable yard, by an inexperienced rider and someone should have accompanied P on the ride.
The Court of Session’s Decision
There was no doubt that causation had been established – P’s injuries were caused by the accident. There was also a recognised risk that the horse would be harder to handle after box rest and restricted exercise. However, the Court did not agree with P’s argument that there was a recognised risk that a horse would be more likely to misbehave on a second ride following restricted exercise. Although the horse had reared on the morning ride, there was no indication that the same thing would happen again when P began to ride the horse out of the yard. Although D ought to have been aware that there was a recognised risk that horses can play up following a period of reduced exercise, he did not know and ought not to have known that the horse would behave worse on a second outing. D was required to consider whether P, by virtue of her experience as a rider, was competent to take the horse out that day unaccompanied. The Court concluded that a rider of P’s experience should have been able to handle an excitable horse who reared, as long as it was not a high rear.
Comment
The Court stated that had there been a reasonably foreseeable risk that the horse would misbehave to such an extent that P would have been forced to dismount, the Court would have concluded that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to the rider, and it would not have determined that the precise means by which the accident occurred, i.e. the horse rearing then falling on the pursuer, be reasonably foreseeable.
This case provides a succinct illustration as to what can be defined as ‘reasonably foreseeable’ and the extent of the Defendant’s duty in that regard.
