Smith v Worth

Personal Injury barrister, Richard Stead, successfully acted for the claimant who suffered severe pelvic injuries when riding her horse. This was a negligence claim in which liability was found against the defendant professional dog walker.

Whilst a dog can irritate, spook or frighten a horse, the usual outcome is a sharp kick from the horse which sends the dog off yelping.  Somewhat different was the case of Smith v Worth which involved a highly competent rider falling to the ground with her rearing horse after the horse had been spooked by two dogs running loose whilst the professional dog walker responsible for the dogs attempted unsuccessfully to recall the two dogs.

The incident occurred on a common during daylight hours.  The horse was being hacked along a bridleway.  As the rider approached the junction of the bridleway and a track which ran at right angles to the bridleway she saw to her left the dog walker, who had four dogs off their leads, walking along the track.  The rider was approximately 30 yards from the junction.  She stopped to give the dog walker time to put the dogs on their leads.  She managed to get two dogs onto their leads but failed to get the two remaining dogs onto their leads, in spite of her best efforts to do so.  A number of minutes passed as the rider slowly moved forwards towards the junction and the dog walker continued to try to recall the two dogs.

The rider was naturally concerned to avoid an incident with the dogs and decided her safest option was to move her horse forward in an arc around the dogs whilst turning left onto the track.  As she did so one of the dogs ran out of the undergrowth behind her horse whilst the other dog ran in front of her horse.

The horse reared and fell backwards with the rider landing on the ground underneath the horse.  She suffered severe pelvic injuries.

The claim was brought in negligence.

There was a dispute as to the facts with the Judge finding in the claimant’s favour on the facts.

The Judge found that “The defendant appreciated the risk that existed where dogs and horses came into proximity.  She immediately tried to put them on the lead because of this.  The risk of not having complete control of a dog if it is off the lead is increased four-fold if there are four dogs.  It is more difficult and will take more time to get them on the lead.  More than on dog presents a much greater risk as the horse has more than one to track if they are not in control.

Objectively, I find that it was foreseeable that if any of the dogs ran out of control near a horse it might “spook” the horse and, in that event, there was a significant risk of the horse responding in a way that might cause the horse and rider to fall and serious injury to the rider.”

Reference was made to Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence para. 15-97, Whippey v Jones [2009] EWCA Civ 452 and Cooke v Jackson [1999] WLUK 959.

Liability was found against the defendant dog walker who was insured.  Allegations of contributory negligence made against the horse rider were unsuccessful.

Claimant’s solicitors : Mary-Ann Charles, Shaw and Co, Newcastle

Richard is one of the leading practitioners on the Western circuit handling claims of catastrophic injury. He is highly regarded for his expertise in a wide array of complex and specialist liability claims including animals, agriculture, trees and construction. He has considerable experience in employer’s liability, sports injury and RTA claims, and regularly handles high-value claims for claimant and defendant solicitors, particularly those involving brain injury. Read more here.