Goldsmith v Patchcott

Goldsmith v Patchcott

The claimant, as an experienced rider, was aware of and voluntarily accepted the risk that the horse might rear and buck if startled or alarmed. The fact that the bucking was more violent than anticipated does not negate the voluntary acceptance of risk. Therefore, the defendant has a defence under section 5(2) of the Animals Act 1971, and the claim fails.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mrs. Kara Goldsmith; First Defendant/respondent: Mr. Robert Bradley Patchcott; Second Defendant: Mrs. Cheryl Roach
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strict Liability for Animals, Defences Under Animals Act, Voluntary Assumption of Risk
Tort Law Statutory Liability Strict Liability for Animals Defences Under Animals Act Voluntary Assumption of Risk

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. Kara Goldsmith

Claimant/appellant

Mr. Robert Bradley Patchcott

First Defendant/respondent

Mrs. Cheryl Roach

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements for strict liability under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 are established
  2. 2 Whether the keeper of the horse has a defence under section 5(2) of the Animals Act 1971

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant, as an experienced rider, was aware of and voluntarily accepted the risk that the horse might rear and buck if startled or alarmed. The fact that the bucking was more violent than anticipated does not negate the voluntary acceptance of risk. Therefore, the defendant has a defence under section 5(2) of the Animals Act 1971, and the claim fails.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's appeal is dismissed.
  • The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.