Council appeals successfully against horse fair charge

Glaister and others v Appleby-in-Westmorland Town Council

(Court of Appeal — 9 December 2009)

The claimant, Mr Glaister, suffered a serious head injury at the Appleby Horse Fair, at which he and his family were spectators of a horse and carriage racing event.

 

In the immediate vicinity and unrelated to the race, there had been a number of other horses tied up, although suddenly one of the horses broke free and began to charge. The claimant, to protect his family, attempted to take hold of its lead at which point the horse turned and kicked the claimant in the head.

 

Claims were brought against Appleby-in-Westmorland Town Council. It was argued that the town council was negligent for failing to ensure that public liability insurance was arranged, which would have covered the circumstances of the accident, thereby causing the claimant's economic loss.

 

The Appleby Horse Fair is a customary event, lasting for one week and has taken place every June for several centuries. It takes place on a large area of land of mixed ownership, including land owned by the town council, private land owners, and the local highways. The landowners allow it to take place on their land without necessarily participating in the fair itself.

 

It was held that there was no one body that had exclusive control over the Appleby Horse Fair, although the town council had encouraged visitors by promoting it on its website.

 

The court of first instance found in favour of the claimants. On appeal it was held that a defendant cannot ordinarily be held liable for personal injury or physical damage caused by the negligence of a third party, simply because the defendant could have foreseen and prevented it. It was further held that an occupier of land owes no duty to ensure that competent contractors are insured or otherwise to meet claims for damages for negligence.

 

The Court of Appeal held that the town council owed no duty to ensure the placement of public liability insurance.

Comment

This decision is both logical and, for public policy purposes, reasonable. The decision of the court of first instance could have caused significant ramifications for many villages, towns and cities that host annual events, such as festivals or carnivals. Any bodies wishing to encourage and support tourism in their local area ought to be able to do so freely without incurring an assumed responsibility to insure the event.

- Daniel Verow, BLM London

This law report first appeared in Post Magazine on 25 February 2010

<<< Back