Wooldridge v Sumner [1963] 2 QB 43T

wooldridge v sumner [1963] 2 qb 43

the claimant was a photographer at a horse show. he was situated within the ring of the horse show and not behind the barriers where the spectators were housed. he was on a bench with a miss smallwood who was a director of the company which employed the claimant. he had been taking little interest in the proceedings and was not experienced in regard to horses.during the competition, one of the horses, work of art owned by the defendant, came galloping at great speed towards the bench where they were sitting. the claimant took fright at the approach of the galloping horse and attempted unsuccessfully to pull miss smallwood off the bench. he stepped or fell back into the course of the horse which passed three or few feet behind the bench,.and was knocked down. the claimant brought an action in negligence arguing the rider had lost control of the horse and was going too fast. the defendant raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria.


held:

there was no breach of duty so the claimant's action failed. on the issue of volenti non fit injuria it was held that consent to the risk of injury was insufficient.there must be consent to the breach of duty in full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk.


diplock lj:

"the maxim in english law presupposes a tortious act by the defendant.the consent that is relevant is not consent to the risk of injury but consent to the lack of reasonable care that may produce that risk ... and requires on the part of the plaintiff at the time at which he gives his consent full knowledge of the nature and. extent of the risk that he ran.

Wooldridge v Sumner [1963] 2 QB 43

The claimant was a photographer at a horse show. He was situated within the ring of the horse show and not behind the barriers where the spectators were housed. He was on a bench with a Miss Smallwood who was a director of the company which employed the Claimant. He had been taking little interest in the proceedings and was not experienced in regard to horses. During the competition, one of the horses, Work of Art owned by the Defendant, came galloping at great speed towards the bench where they were sitting. The Claimant took fright at the approach of the galloping horse and attempted unsuccessfully to pull Miss Smallwood off the bench. He stepped or fell back into the course of the horse which passed three or few feet behind the bench, and was knocked down. The Claimant brought an action in negligence arguing the rider had lost control of the horse and was going too fast. The defendant raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria.


Held:

There was no breach of duty so the Claimant's action failed. On the issue of volenti non fit injuria it was held that consent to the risk of injury was insufficient. There must be consent to the breach of duty in full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk.


Diplock LJ:

"The maxim in English law presupposes a tortious act by the defendant. The consent that is relevant is not consent to the risk of injury but consent to the lack of reasonable care that may produce that risk... and requires on the part of the plaintiff at the time at which he gives his consent full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk that he ran

V Wooldridge Sumner [1963] QB 2 43

The claimant was a photographer at a horse show. He was situated within the ring of the horse Show and not behind the barriers where the spectators were housed. He was on a bench with a Miss Smallwood who was a director of the company which employed the Claimant.He had been taking little interest in the proceedings and was not experienced in regard to horses.The During competition, one of the horses, owned by the Defendant Work of Art, came galloping at great speed towards the bench where they were sitting. The Claimant took fright at the approach of the galloping horse and attempted unsuccessfully to pull off the bench Miss Smallwood. He stepped or fell back into the course of the horse which passed three or few feet behind the bench,and was knocked down. The Claimant brought an action in negligence arguing the rider had lost control of the horse and was going too fast. The raised the defendant defence of volenti non fit injuria.


Held:

There was no breach of duty so the Claimant's action failed. On the issue of volenti non fit injuria it was held that consent to the risk of injury was insufficient.must be There consent to the breach of duty in full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk.


Diplock LJ:

"The English maxim in law presupposes a tortious act by the defendant.The consent is not consent that is relevant to the risk of injury but consent to the lack of reasonable care that may produce risk ... and that requires on the part of the plaintiff at the time at which he gives his consent full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk that he ran