The High Court has dismissed a woman’s personal injury claim against Clonshire Equestrian Centre and the University of Limerick over a fall from a horse during a college horsemanship class in 2013. The court found the horse’s buck contributed to the fall but concluded the accident could not be attributed in law to wrongdoing by either defendant.
The plaintiff was taking part in a practical class at Clonshire as part of her second-year equine science degree. She suffered a two-part fracture to a lumbar vertebra and continued to experience lower back pain at the time of trial, about nine years later.
She alleged that the defendants negligently assigned her Mocha, a horse with a known tendency to buck, without warning her. She also alleged that the arena surface was too hard and that she should have been required to wear a body protector. Both defendants disputed liability. The university said the fall resulted from rider error; Clonshire maintained Mocha was suitable and the arena properly maintained.
The judge accepted that Mocha bucked after clearing a low pole and that the buck was severe enough to cause the rider to lose control. The horse turned sharply left near the end wall, unseating her. But the court rejected the claim that Mocha had a known propensity to buck. It preferred evidence from the defendants’ witnesses over a former student’s recollection that a university instructor had warned him about the horse. The judge found that recollection unreliable and concluded there was no basis for either defendant to consider Mocha unsuitable or not to assign him to the plaintiff.
The judge also found no negligence over the arena surface or body protector. The court accepted that the arena was appropriately maintained and found no evidence that its condition caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Body protectors had been available, were not compulsory for this exercise, and the plaintiff had not sought one.
Although dismissing the claim, the judge criticised Clonshire’s incomplete horse records, lack of a documented investigation into the serious accident, and late disclosure of the sales catalogue entry for Mocha. He said proper records and investigation could have clarified the dispute before trial. He also questioned why the university had not followed up on the former student’s account.
The judge’s provisional view was that the shortcomings could justify departing from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, with the plaintiff potentially receiving part of her costs. As the parties had not agreed on costs, the issue was listed for a later hearing.