The case of Anne McGregor v LMRS Farm Limited [2007] CSOH153, called in the Outer House of the Court of Session recently before Lady Dorrian.
The Pursuer raised an action against a riding school after she was thrown from a horse during a lesson. She argued that the riding school were in breach of their duty to take reasonable care for her safety. This was repudiated by the riding school and the matter proceeded to Proof. Damages were agreed at £30,000 and therefore the Proof proceeded on liability alone.
On the day Mrs McGregor was injured she was having her tenth riding lesson. The first three/four lessons were in basic beginners and the next five lessons were at a standard level for beginners (level 2) where the riders learned to trot and canter. Mrs McGregor had previously been riding a horse called “Third Time”. On the day of the accident she had moved up to level 3. The riding school made this decision. Her horse “Third Time” had gone lame and a different horse “Suchard” was provided to her. To highlight the difference between each horse, Mrs McGregor described “Third Time” as being a reliable Volvo, with “Suchard” being a Ferrari!
The basis of Mrs McGregor’s case was that she should not have been on that horse in that class on that date. Her position was that:
1. The horse was accustomed to more advanced riders and not to inexperienced riders who might give incomplete or confusing signals to the horse; and
2. If a more capable horse of “Suchard’s” type was placed with an inexperienced rider, an accident of the type which occurred was foreseeable.
The riding school denied this and moved the Court to absolve them of any responsibility. The riding school said that the Court had to consider whether Mrs McGregor could prove that “Suchard” should not have been selected for her on that particular day.
Lady Dorrian was satisfied that the riding school, when making their decision to use Suchard, were aware of the need not to put a horse that was “too sharp” with a less experienced rider. Lady Dorrian did not accept that it was negligent to place the horse with a rider at a lower level just because that horse was more accustomed to riding at a more advanced level. Mrs McGregor did not establish that there was such a thing as a level 2 or level 3 horse. Lady Dorrian accepted that the horse was well known to the riding school and that it was upon their assessment of the horse’s temperament and character that they had based their decision. She accepted that the riding school had taken the “nature of the horse” into account. The expert called as a witness for Mrs McGregor said that when deciding with which horse to place a rider she would have taken into account factors such as:
1. How the horse had behaved in more advanced lessons;
2. The horse’s sensitivity; and
3. The horse’s degree of obedience.
Lady Dorrian accepted all of these factors had been taken into account by the riding school. She accepted that Mrs McGregor had been good for her standard of riding and had appeared relatively confident at the time. She also accepted that Mrs McGregor had indicated a willingness to canter on the horse on that particular day.
It was fortunate that the riding school were able to convince Lady Dorrian that they knew their horse’s temperament well, and had taken this into account when making the decision to place the horse with a rider. On this basis, no damages were awarded to Mrs McGregor. Lady Dorrian concluded that the decision to place her on “Suchard” was a reasonable one and that the riding school were not liable.
Contact
Karina McShane
(Information posted in October 2007and may not have been updated at time of reading).