Harris v Miller

A horse owner’s duty when permitting a young person to ride must be assessed by reference to the owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of both the horse and the rider. The fact of a fall, injury, or an unsuitable match between horse and rider does not, without more, establish negligence.

An ordinary reasonably prudent horse owner should obtain sufficient information about the horse and rider to assess the risks of an inherently dangerous activity. Where the owner knows, or ought to know, that a horse is strong and difficult to control, permitting an inexperienced rider to trot it in an open field may constitute a breach of duty. It is unnecessary to foresee the precise serious injury if loss of control and injury of some kind were reasonably foreseeable.

The claimant, aged 14, suffered paraplegic injuries after falling from the defendant’s newly acquired thoroughbred horse. She brought a claim in negligence and under the Animals Act 1971. The Animals Act claim was not pursued because it added nothing to the liability issue.

The central dispute concerned the claimant’s riding experience, the defendant’s knowledge of the horse and rider, the horse’s characteristics, and the circumstances of the fall. The court determined liability only, following a five-day trial involving lay and expert evidence.

1. Liability established. The claimant proved negligence and was entitled to recover damages, which were to be assessed later.
2. The claimant could not succeed merely by showing that she fell, was injured, or probably ought not to have been riding a horse that was too large or strong for her. The relevant question was whether the defendant, having regard to her actual or constructive knowledge of both horse and rider, breached the duty owed to a young person for whom she was responsible.
3. The standard was that of the ordinary and reasonably prudent horse owner. Such an owner should obtain sufficient information about the horse and rider to assess the risks of permitting participation in an inherently dangerous activity.
4. The defendant had insufficient knowledge of the claimant’s true riding experience and had failed to make appropriate enquiries or obtain suitable advice before acquiring a strong thoroughbred horse. The horse was found to be strong, wilful, uneducated, unresponsive and difficult to control.
5. By encouraging the claimant to ride first, and permitting or directing her to trot the horse in an open field, the defendant exposed her to a foreseeable risk of loss of control and injury. The claimant’s expressed insecurity provided an additional reason for exercising extreme caution, such as restricting the ride to walking or avoiding the open field.
6. The precise serious injury need not have been foreseeable. It was sufficient that loss of control by the horse could reasonably be foreseen to unseat the rider and cause injury.