MacClancy v Carenza (t/a the Vine Riding & Livery Yard)

An instructor must take reasonable steps to reduce the risks of riding instruction to an acceptable level, particularly where a nervous rider may be unsettled by an unfamiliar circumstance. Liability requires proof that a foreseeable danger, inadequate warning, or other negligent act caused the accident. A long history of safe use is not decisive, but may strongly support the conclusion that an obstacle was neither dangerous nor foreseeably perceived as dangerous. The occurrence of an accident does not itself establish negligence, and failures in accident recording or reporting do not determine whether the activity was conducted negligently or caused the injury.

The claimant suffered severe injuries when she fell from a horse during a riding lesson on the defendant’s cross-country course. She alleged that the defendant negligently failed to warn her about overhanging branches, failed to control the speed and order of the riders, failed to inspect the course, stood too far from the obstacle, and failed properly to record and report the accident. The central issues were whether the drop down or its surroundings presented a foreseeable danger to a nervous rider, whether any breach caused the fall, and whether the remaining criticisms were causally relevant.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court found that the claimant was capable of negotiating the drop down, that the horse was suitable, and that the defendant had given appropriate instructions to approach slowly and use the correct riding technique.

2. The photographs and evidence established that no branch was low enough to strike the claimant or to create a foreseeable appearance of danger. The claimant’s account that she believed a branch would catch her in the throat was rejected. The court accepted that the defendant should be alert to unfamiliar circumstances capable of unsettling nervous riders, but found no such circumstance on the evidence.

3. The long and safe use of the obstacle by many riders was not decisive. It was nevertheless a factor strongly supporting the conclusion that the drop down and canopy were neither dangerous nor foreseeably perceived as dangerous.

4. The order in which the riders proceeded, the speed of approach, the defendant’s position at the end of the sequence, the condition of the track, the unguarded stump, and the absence of a same-day inspection did not cause the accident. Some condition of the fencing was unsatisfactory, but the relevant stump played no part in causation.

5. The defendant’s failures to maintain a proper accident record and to notify the Health and Safety Executive promptly were serious. They did not establish that the obstacle was dangerous or that the defendant’s conduct caused the claimant’s fall. The accident was therefore treated as an unexplained fall for which the instructor was not legally responsible.

6. The alternative claims for losses connected with a lease extension and alleged diminished commercial activity would also have failed for want of proof of causation and loss.

Not stated in the judgment.