Injuries caused when plaintiff was thrown from a horse were the result of an unfortunate accident

Personal injuries – plaintiff thrown from a horse at an equestrian centre - course of a practical horsemanship class exercise supervised by instructors - plaintiff’s injuries - plaintiff’s horse-riding experience - plaintiff’s claims and defendants’ defences - contract - a material factor in the plaintiff’s fall was the fact that the horse bucked when he did – body protectors – Court not believe the plaintiff has made out a case in negligence arising from the fact that she was not directed to wear a body protector on the day of the accident - neither of the defendants was negligent arising from the fact that the plaintiff did not wear a body protector on the day of her accident – surface - nature of the surface material used in the equestrian centre was state-of-the-art and appropriate for use - plaintiff has not made out a case in negligence arising from the condition of the surface – whether the horse had a history of bucking - horses, even well-trained ones, are inherently unpredictable animals – people should be warned of a horse with a propensity to buck -should not be used in a riding school or university equine course context – horse did not have a known propensity to buck and there was no basis for the equestrian centre to believe he was not a suitable horse for supply - unfortunate accident – could not be attributed to the defendants – discovery – centre’s investigation of the incident – absence of records – proceedings dismissed – Court’s preliminary view is that the failings in record keeping, thorough investigation and compliance with discovery obligations, my provisional view is that this is a case which would warrant departure from the ordinary rule (reflected in s.169(1) Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015) that costs should follow the event may be appropriate that the plaintiff is awarded a portion of her costs –