Girl who suffers serious spinal injuries competing in Rodeo denied compensation

Oct 20, 2023 | Publication

On 23 October 2020 the New South Wales Court of Appeal made an interesting decision with respect to common law claims and obvious risk.

The claim related to circumstances where a girl, aged 19 at the time, had fallen off her horse whilst competing in a campdrafting event held by the Australian Bushmen’s Campdraft and Rodeo Association Ltd. The fall occurred when her horse slipped whilst cantering in the arena. There was strong evidence that the grounds of the arena had deteriorated during the course of the event and that some 700 riders had participated in the event prior to the plaintiff. The defendant argued that the risk of the fall was an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity. 

The primary judge in this case found for the defendant on the basis that negligence was not established by the plaintiff and that the said fall was an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity.

The plaintiff appealed the decision of the primary judge. Although the appeal was dismissed by the majority of judges, it should be noted that McCallum JA dissented. That is, he found for the plaintiff.

The majority dismissed the appeal on the basis that a reasonable person would have made an informed decision as to whether it was safe to continue with the competition in circumstances where so many riders had previously ridden in the arena. The majority did not find that a breach of duty of care had been established by the plaintiff. Nor did they find that the exercise of reasonable care would have required the event to be stopped for ploughing of the arena or a warning issued to the plaintiff that the arena had become unsafe. The majority held that the occurrence was a manifestation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity.

McCallum J found however that ‘the risk that materialised must be characterised with enough particularity to enable the court to determine whether it was foreseeable by the organisers, whether it was capable of attracting liability and whether it would have been obvious to a reasonable person’ in the position of the plaintiff. McCallum further found that the plaintiff’s description of the risk was adequate and that the said risk would not have been obvious to a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position.

Had the plaintiff been successful in her claim, she would have received $6,750,000 in damages. This amount was agreed to by the parties when the matter was before the primary judge.

The decision can be read in full here: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/175442151938da8c1921ac72

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

How does the court assess pain and suffering?

In New South Wales (NSW), the assessment of pain and suffering—referred to legally as non-economic loss—is governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("CLA"). This is compensation for the intangible effects of the injury, such as pain and suffering, loss of...

Property Disputes – How Can They Arise?

Property disputes arise in many different ways – not only in commercial contexts but also in residential settings.  Some of the types of property disputes include:...

Can a Child under 14 years commit a Crime?

In New South Wales, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old.  A child under 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence. For children aged 10 to under 14, there is a legal presumption known as doli incapax, which assumes the child is incapable of...

Why is it important to know who your client is?

In a range of contexts, it is important to know who your client is. In most professional service contexts, the identity of the client is the starting point to providing advice.  If it is not clear who the professional advisor is advising, this can cause issues as...

Mental Harm Damages Following Birth Trauma: Lessons from Sorbello

In South Western Sydney Local Health District v Sorbello [2024] NSWCA 14, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has provided timely guidance on two important issues in personal injury litigation: how courts choose between competing expert opinions on mental harm, and...

Damages for Defamation – Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275

A family dispute resolution practitioner was awarded $150,000 in aggravated damages, $10,000 in interest, and an injunction in a recent Supreme Court of New South Wales case. The defendant posted defamatory statements about the plaintiff on WordPress, Facebook, and...

Review Panel Determines Right Hand Injury as Non-Threshold Injury

The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) has ruled in Tasseli v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPICMP 49 that damage to pre-existing surgical hardware constitutes a non-threshold injury, entitling the Claimant to ongoing statutory benefits and...

What are 5 legal requirements for a business?

When a new business is set up, there are various legal aspects which should be considered.  Some are more important than others in the early stages.  Obviously the nature of the business will dictate more specific legal requirements. We set out below some...

Court Dismisses Group Proceeding

A significant class action against Waller Legal Pty Ltd has been halted after the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that the proceeding should no longer continue as a group proceeding. The case, Jane Jones (a pseudonym) v Waller Legal Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 42, involved...