Devereux v Hayward & Anor

A motorist approaching horses on a narrow country road must take reasonable care to control the vehicle and reduce both speed and other features likely to alarm the animals. Where a vehicle’s excessive speed and loud noise cause a normally steady horse to take flight, and loss of control then causes a collision and injury, the chain of causation is established on the balance of probabilities. A claimant riding a stable horse may ordinarily remain on the carriageway and need not dismount or give a warning merely because a noisy vehicle approaches. Contributory negligence requires proof that the claimant’s conduct caused or contributed to the accident; it is not established by hindsight once an unforeseen emergency has developed.

The claimant was riding a horse along a narrow New Forest road when the first defendant approached on a motorcycle with a pillion passenger. The motorcycle had a non-standard exhaust and was travelling at about 45 mph in a 40 mph limit. The horse turned and bolted, the claimant fell and sustained serious head injuries.

The trial concerned liability only, including contributory negligence but excluding the effect of protective headgear. The court resolved conflicting accounts about whether the motorcycle lost control, whether the riders came off, and whether the motorcycle collided with the horse.

1. Primary liability. On the balance of probabilities, the motorcycle was approaching at excessive speed and making a very loud noise. The defendant reduced the engine noise but continued coasting at speed and did not materially slow or move left before reaching the horses.
2. The combination of the loud and increasing noise and the sight and speed of the approaching motorcycle startled the claimant’s otherwise calm and traffic-experienced horse. The horse turned in one continuous movement to flee. The defendant was then only a few feet away, was startled by the movement, applied his brakes, and lost control partly because of his speed.
3. The defendant and his passenger came off the motorcycle. The motorcycle fell to the right and most probably struck the inside of the horse’s left hind leg, causing the documented gash. The collision caused, or materially contributed to, the horse’s bolting and the claimant’s fall. The defendant’s negligent failure to keep control of the motorcycle therefore caused the accident.
4. Contributory negligence. The claimant was not negligent in remaining on the carriageway, failing to move onto the verge, failing to dismount, or failing to signal that her horse was nervous. She was entitled to rely on the horse’s established stability in traffic. Once the horse had been startled and the motorcycle had lost control, it was too late to expect her to prevent the horse from bolting or remain in the saddle.
5. There was judgment for the claimant, with damages to be assessed.

First-instance decision. No prior or appellate decision is stated in the judgment.