WAYMAN v DAVIES and ANOR [1998] NSWCA 255

WAYMAN v DAVIES and ANOR [1998] NSWCA 255

Neither respondent was liable for negligence: The first respondent (property owner) did not want the horses, acted promptly to remove them, and provided warning signs in accordance with local practice. Even if a duty of care arose, it was satisfied with these precautions. For the second respondent (horse owner), given the infrequency of horse escapes, prompt removal practice, and other contextual factors, the standard of reasonableness was met; therefore, no breach of duty occurred.

Parties
Appellant: Wayman; First Respondent: Davies (first respondent); Second Respondent: Davies (second respondent)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Tort Appeal / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Animals Straying Onto Highway, Duty of Landowner, Breach of Duty, Factual Causation, Standard of Care
Negligence Torts Animals Straying Onto Highway Duty of Landowner Breach of Duty Factual Causation Standard of Care

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wayman

Appellant

Davies (first respondent)

First Respondent

Davies (second respondent)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Appeal / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent (property owner) or second respondent (horse owner) was negligent in respect of a horse on the highway leading to appellant's injury
  2. 2 Whether adequate precautions were taken by the respondents to prevent horses straying onto the roadway
  3. 3 Whether fencing or warning signs were required under the duty of care

Ratio Decidendi

Neither respondent was liable for negligence: The first respondent (property owner) did not want the horses, acted promptly to remove them, and provided warning signs in accordance with local practice. Even if a duty of care arose, it was satisfied with these precautions. For the second respondent (horse owner), given the infrequency of horse escapes, prompt removal practice, and other contextual factors, the standard of reasonableness was met; therefore, no breach of duty occurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay respondents' costs