Callaghan v Killarney Race Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 15 June 1958
• Date: 15 June 1958
• Court: Supreme Court

Callaghan v. Killarney Race Co. Ltd.

JEREMIAH CALLAGHAN

Appellant

and

KILLARNEY RACE COMPANY LIMITED, Respondents (1)

Supreme Court.

Negligence - Personal injury - Horse racing course - Spectator admitted on payment of entrance fee - Risks inherent in the sport - Unforeseen accident - Implied terms of contract - Duty of owners.

The defendants were the owners and occupiers of a race-course at Killarney and thereon managed and controlled horse-races. The plaintiff, a regular visitor to the course, paid to enter the public enclosure to view the races. He was standing behind a railing, which separated the public from the race-track, and close to the first hurdle and was watching a race, his attention being fixed on the leading horse, when one of the competing horses at the rear, instead of going over the hurdle jumped over the wing of the hurdle into the spectators and injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought an action for damages against the defendants in the High Court, and, on the trial of the action, the trial Judge, at the close of the case for the plaintiff and on the application of the defendants, withdrew the case from the jury on the ground that there was no evidence to justify a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal by the plaintiff, it was

Held by the Supreme Court (Maguire C.J., Lavery, Kingsmill Moore, O'Daly and Maguire JJ.) that the trial Judge was correct in withdrawing the case from the jury. The occurrence was a danger inherent in racing; that a horse might jump off the course was a possibility of which spectators are aware and the plaintiff must be held to have accepted that risk and accordingly there was no evidence of any breach of duty on the defendants' part.

Appeal from the High Court.

The defendants, a limited company, were at all material times the prospectors, owners and occupiers of a race-course at Killarney, in the County of Kerry, and thereon managed and controlled horse-races at which the public were invited to attend, and to which they were admitted upon payment of an admission charge. The race-course was circular and was surrounded by a railing or fence which separated the spectators from the course. The railing was a light wooden rail resting on standards, three feet two inches in height. On the 22nd July, 1954, the defendants held a race-meeting on the said course at which there was a public enclosure and to which the plaintiff, Jeremiah Callaghan, a frequent visitor to the course, was admitted on the payment of a sum of two shillings to the defendants. He took up a position at a popular vantage-point close to the rail beside the track, at a point near the first hurdle. This hurdle was of the ordinary type and consisted of five frames four feet high and packed with birch twigs, and projecting from each side of the frames were wings, also made of hurdles. The wings, which indicated the approach to each hurdle, extended from a point on the ground which on one side touched the railing surrounding the track, and they rose gradually from the ground to the top of the jump. The plaintiff was watching

the first race, the Killarney Maiden Hurdle, and his attention was fixed on the leading horse, when suddenly a horse from the rear, instead of jumping over the hurdle, jumped over the wing adjoining the railing and into the crowd of spectators seriously injuring the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought an action for damages against the defendants in the High Court for personal injury and loss suffered and incurred by reason of the negligence and breach of duty of the defendants. At the close of the case for the plaintiff and on the application of the defendants, the trial Judge (Haugh J.) withdrew the case from the jury on the ground that there was no evidence upon which the jury might find that the defendants were guilty of negligence, and judgment was entered accordingly. Against this judgment the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

Cur. adv. vult.

Maguire C.J. :—

On the 22nd July, 1954, the plaintiff went to the races at Killarney. While watching the first race which was a hurdle race he met with injuries. He has sued the Killarney Race Company for damages, alleging that his injuries were caused by their negligence. At the gate he paid two shillings and was entitled to go to the unreserved part of the course, which appears to be the whole area surrounded by the race-track. There were no terms of contract between him and the defendant Company and the contract between them is to be implied from the circumstances of the case. He took up his position to watch the first race close to the rail beside the track at a point where the hurdle which had to be jumped first was situated. This hurdle was of the ordinary type with which those who attend races are familiar. It consisted of five frames four feet high with birch twigs rammed into them. As it sloped away from the direction which the horses approached its height was three feet six inches. At each end of the hurdle there was a wing of similar type to the frames forming the hurdle. They were of the same height as the frames mentioned but rose slightly higher as they were not tilted. They made an angle with the straight face of the hurdle opening out towards the direction from which the horses were to come. The wing on the left went right over to the rail guarding the course.

This rail, which is referred to as the public guard rail, was a light wooden rail resting on standards three feet two inches in height. It was of the same type all round the course. Near the finishing-post, however, it was much stronger and was supplemented by a rail nine feet away consisting of

concrete posts and a double rail. The purpose of the rail save at the finishing-post is merely to define the track and according to the evidence was not devised as a protection either for horses or spectators. Neither were the side wings of the hurdle devised as a protection to either the horses or the spectators. Their purpose was obviously to indicate clearly to the jockeys the hurdle which was to be jumped. The construction of this hurdle was similar to that of all the other hurdles on the course and was similar to hurdles on other courses.

There were seven runners in the first race. The start was two hundred and twenty yards from the hurdle. The plaintiff, standing close to the rail and behind the wing of the hurdle, was watching the horses approach. The evidence was that he followed with his eyes the leading horses. One of those behind diverged from the course, jumped the wing of the hurdle and knocked the plaintiff and some other spectators down. Although no similar accident had happened on this course previously it is obvious that there is a possibility that a rider would lose control of a horse and that the horse might get in amongst the spectators and that if he is trained to jumping either hurdles or other obstacles he might do as this horse did. These risks are incidental to and inseparable from the sport of racing. The races were run under both the Rules of Racing and the rules of the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Committee. It is not...