Goode v Angland [2016] NSWSC 1014

Goode v Angland [2016] NSWSC 1014

The defendant, Mr Angland, did not breach any duty of care owed to the plaintiff and was not negligent; the closing of the gap into which Mr Goode advanced was gradual, not abrupt, and Mr Angland's horse did not shift in an unreasonable or unsafe manner. The incident resulted from the plaintiff's horse over racing and being uncontrollable, causing the fall, and no act or omission by the defendant was causative. Even if this was not so, the injury resulted from the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity (professional horseracing) within the meaning of s 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002, excluding liability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence Personal Injury / Principal Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'duty of Care in Sport' 'civil Liability Act 2002 S 5 K' 'obvious Risk' 'dangerous Recreational Activity' 'professional Horseracing Injuries']
['tort Law' 'personal Injury Law' 'sports Law'] ['negligence' 'duty of Care in Sport' 'civil Liability Act 2002 S 5 K' 'obvious Risk' 'dangerous Recreational Activity' 'professional Horseracing Injuries']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence Personal Injury / Principal Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant negligently caused or permitted his horse to take the plaintiff's running, resulting in the plaintiff's fall and catastrophic injury during a professional horse race" "Whether the defendant's conduct amounted to a breach of duty or was an error of judgment in the context of professional horse racing" "Whether the events fall within the Civil Liability Act 2002's provisions on dangerous recreational activity, and whether professional horseracing is covered"]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, Mr Angland, did not breach any duty of care owed to the plaintiff and was not negligent; the closing of the gap into which Mr Goode advanced was gradual, not abrupt, and Mr Angland's horse did not shift in an unreasonable or unsafe manner. The incident resulted from the plaintiff's horse over racing and being uncontrollable, causing the fall, and no act or omission by the defendant was causative. Even if this was not so, the injury resulted from the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity (professional horseracing) within the meaning of s 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002, excluding liability.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • []