Wooldridge v Sumner

A participant in a sporting competition does not breach the duty owed to a spectator merely by making an error of judgment or suffering a lapse of skill while acting in the course and for the purposes of the competition. Liability ordinarily requires conduct showing reckless disregard for the spectator’s safety.

The standard accounts for the speed, competitive purpose and limited decision-making time inherent in the sport. It is assessed objectively from the perspectives of the reasonable participant and the reasonable spectator. The spectator’s acceptance of risks incidental to ordinary play limits the content of the duty; it does not depend upon volenti non fit injuria. Personal ignorance of those ordinary risks does not increase the participant’s duty.

A professional photographer was injured in the arena at the National Horse Show when a competition horse, ridden at a gallop by an experienced rider, travelled along a line of tubs and struck him. Barry J found the rider negligent, principally because the horse had entered a corner too fast and because the rider allegedly attempted to redirect it instead of allowing it to run on to the adjacent track. Damages were awarded against the horse’s owner. The show’s promoters were exonerated, and no appeal was brought against that decision.

The owner appealed. The central questions were whether the trial judge’s inferences were supported by the primary facts and whether an error of judgment or lapse of skill committed during a fast-moving sporting competition amounted to breach of the duty owed by a participant to a nearby spectator.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Sellers, Danckwerts and Diplock LJJ held that the rider had not been negligent. Judgment was entered for the first defendant.

2. Diplock LJ held that a spectator takes the risk of damage caused by an act performed in the course and for the purposes of a game or competition, notwithstanding an error of judgment or lapse of skill, unless the participant’s conduct evinces reckless disregard for the spectator’s safety. This conclusion concerns the content of the duty of reasonable care. It is not an application of volenti non fit injuria. Sellers LJ similarly regarded the relationship between participant and spectator as involving a standard adapted to what the sport permits and what the spectator reasonably expects.

3. The standard must account for the participant’s concentration upon winning and for decisions made rapidly in circumstances inherent in the competition. Per Diplock LJ, a mistaken measure taken when the participant has no real time to think does not constitute negligence. The duty is one of care, not a warranty of special skill. Liability might arise where a person participates despite knowing, or being expected to know, that inadequate skill makes injury to spectators likely.

4. The trial judge’s primary findings did not support his material inferences. Diplock LJ concluded that the horse had straightened by the time it reached the shrubs and then travelled approximately 20 to 30 yards along them. The inference that the rider deliberately prevented it from running safely on to the track was speculative. Sellers and Danckwerts LJJ agreed that any excessive speed was at most a slight error of judgment and had ceased to operate causally before the accident.

5. The injury was not a reasonably likely consequence of misjudging the corner by a few feet. The horse’s subsequent course was highly improbable, and a reasonable competitor could expect spectators positioned in the arena to remain attentive and take ordinary precautions. The claimant’s personal inexperience with horses did not impose a higher duty upon the rider.

6. The rider acted within the rules, possessed exceptional skill and experience, and displayed neither recklessness nor disregard for safety. The requisite breach was therefore not proved. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. Court of Appeal: The first defendant’s appeal was allowed unanimously. Judgment was entered for him, and leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
2. High Court (Barry J): The rider was found negligent, and damages were awarded against the first defendant. The claim against the British Horse Society was dismissed, and no appeal was brought against that disposition.