Wooldridge v Sumner [1962] EWCA Civ 3

A photographer at a horse show was injured when a competitor's horse veered off course. The court held that participants in sports owe a duty to spectators, but will only be liable for conduct showing reckless disregard for their safety.

Facts

The plaintiff, Mr. Wooldridge, was a photographer attending a national horse show. He had positioned himself inside the arena area, near the line of the course, to take photographs of the competitors. One of the competitors, the first defendant Mr. Sumner, was riding a horse named ‘Work of Art’ in a competition that involved speed and skill. As Mr. Sumner’s horse came around a corner at a gallop, it followed a wider course than intended. The horse travelled towards the area where Mr. Wooldridge was standing, ultimately striking and injuring him. The trial judge found in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the rider was negligent for riding too fast and losing control. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

The central legal issues were:

1. What is the standard of care owed by a participant in a competitive sporting event to a spectator?
2. Was the defendant’s conduct a breach of that standard of care?
3. Did the defence of volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) apply to the plaintiff?

Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, overturning the trial judge’s decision. The Lords Justice held that the standard of care owed by a sportsman to a spectator is different and lower than the standard owed in everyday circumstances, such as on a public road.

Sellers L.J.

Sellers L.J. argued that spectators at such events accept the risks inherent in the spectacle. He stated that for a spectator to succeed in a claim for negligence, there must be a very high degree of carelessness involved. He found that Mr. Sumner’s actions were an error of judgment in the heat of competition, not negligence sufficient to establish liability.

Danckwerts L.J.

Danckwerts L.J. agreed, emphasising that the nature of a horse show competition involves speed and prowess, which inherently carries risks. He believed that the plaintiff, as an experienced photographer of such events, was well aware of the risks involved. He concluded that Mr. Sumner’s conduct, while resulting in an accident, did not amount to negligence in law in the specific context of the competition. He also considered that the case could be explained by the maxim volenti non fit injuria.

Diplock L.J.

Diplock L.J. provided the most detailed and influential reasoning. He was reluctant to rely on the maxim of volenti non fit injuria, preferring instead to correctly define the duty of care itself. He reasoned that the relationship between a spectator and a participant is a special one, where the spectator accepts the risks associated with the sport. He established a clear test for liability, distinguishing a mere error of judgment from actionable negligence. The crucial principle he laid down was:

A person attending a game or competition takes the risk of any damage caused to him by any act of a participant done in the course of and for the purposes of the game or competition notwithstanding that such act may involve an error of judgment or a lapse of skill, unless the participant’s conduct is such as to evince a reckless disregard of the spectator’s safety.

Applying this test, he found that Mr. Sumner’s actions were, at worst, an error of judgment made while trying to win the competition. There was no evidence that he had acted with reckless disregard for Mr. Wooldridge’s safety. Therefore, he was not in breach of the duty of care owed to a spectator.

Implications

This case is a landmark decision in the law of tort concerning sporting events. It establishes that participants in sports will not be held liable for injuries caused to spectators by mere errors of judgment or lapses in skill that are a natural part of the activity. The claimant must prove a much higher degree of fault, specifically that the participant demonstrated a ‘reckless disregard’ for the spectator’s safety. This principle protects sports participants from an overly burdensome duty of care that could stifle competition and has been widely applied in subsequent cases involving injuries in sport.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The judgment for the plaintiff was set aside and judgment was entered for the defendants.

Source: Wooldridge v Sumner [1962] EWCA Civ 3