Diamond Geezer
Gone But Not Forgotten
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 13,884
Wonder if this will set a precedent for racecourses ?
From Glos Echo
Former jockey Philip Hide has been awarded more than £50,000 compensation for injuries sustained in a fall at Cheltenham in 2006.
Hide, who is now a trainer, suffered a head injury and fractured pelvis in a fall from Hatch A Plan and the Court of Appeal today upheld his claim against managers of the Cotswold track.
Hide had fallen from Hatch A Plan at the first hurdle and hit a post supporting a guard rail running around the perimeter of the steeplechase course, judges heard.
He had claimed damages and argued that the hurdle was too close to the perimeter fence - and the fence "too unyielding" or insufficiently padded.
Hide suggested that regulations governing work equipment had been breached.
Course bosses had contested his claim and a judge had ruled against him following a trial at Oxford County Court in June 2012 - concluding that the hurdle and guard rail were "suitable equipment".
But three appeal judges today allowed an appeal by Hide following a hearing in London.
Judges said liability had been disputed but damages had been agreed at £58,000.
And they said Hide had made a full recovery.
Lord Justice Davis, who heard Hide's appeal with Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice McFarlane, said jump racing was "dangerous" and Cheltenham Racecourse prided itself on its "attention to safety considerations".
The judge said the accident had occurred in a "most unusual way", when the horse skidded sharply after falling at the outer end of a hurdle.
But he said what mattered was the "reasonable foreseeability of a collision between horse or rider with the railings' upright at this place".
Lord Justice Davis said the judge at the county court trial had been concerned about the "implications of a conclusion in favour of Mr Hide".
"He was concerned about 'the relentless logic of the personal injury lawyer', as he put it," said Lord Justice Davis.
"Were jump races to be required to be made so undemanding that all horses could be expected to negotiate them without mishap?
"How were the requirements of the regulations to apply, for example, to Becher's Brook at Aintree?
"These are understandable concerns."
But Lord Justice Davis added: "Of course the hazards of jump and hurdle racing may lawfully remain: jumps and hurdles may properly and lawfully continue to pose challenges of varying difficulty."
He said adjustments to the layout or construction of hurdles and railings mooted in the Hide case did not affect the "integrity and ethos" of jump racing.
"What was fundamentally at issue here was not the suitability of this hurdle, taken on its own, or the suitability of the railings' upright, taken on its own," added Lord Justice Davis.
"It was a combination of matters: the location of this particular hurdle so close to this railings' upright (with its particular construction) that gave rise to the problem."
From Glos Echo
Former jockey Philip Hide has been awarded more than £50,000 compensation for injuries sustained in a fall at Cheltenham in 2006.
Hide, who is now a trainer, suffered a head injury and fractured pelvis in a fall from Hatch A Plan and the Court of Appeal today upheld his claim against managers of the Cotswold track.
Hide had fallen from Hatch A Plan at the first hurdle and hit a post supporting a guard rail running around the perimeter of the steeplechase course, judges heard.
He had claimed damages and argued that the hurdle was too close to the perimeter fence - and the fence "too unyielding" or insufficiently padded.
Hide suggested that regulations governing work equipment had been breached.
Course bosses had contested his claim and a judge had ruled against him following a trial at Oxford County Court in June 2012 - concluding that the hurdle and guard rail were "suitable equipment".
But three appeal judges today allowed an appeal by Hide following a hearing in London.
Judges said liability had been disputed but damages had been agreed at £58,000.
And they said Hide had made a full recovery.
Lord Justice Davis, who heard Hide's appeal with Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice McFarlane, said jump racing was "dangerous" and Cheltenham Racecourse prided itself on its "attention to safety considerations".
The judge said the accident had occurred in a "most unusual way", when the horse skidded sharply after falling at the outer end of a hurdle.
But he said what mattered was the "reasonable foreseeability of a collision between horse or rider with the railings' upright at this place".
Lord Justice Davis said the judge at the county court trial had been concerned about the "implications of a conclusion in favour of Mr Hide".
"He was concerned about 'the relentless logic of the personal injury lawyer', as he put it," said Lord Justice Davis.
"Were jump races to be required to be made so undemanding that all horses could be expected to negotiate them without mishap?
"How were the requirements of the regulations to apply, for example, to Becher's Brook at Aintree?
"These are understandable concerns."
But Lord Justice Davis added: "Of course the hazards of jump and hurdle racing may lawfully remain: jumps and hurdles may properly and lawfully continue to pose challenges of varying difficulty."
He said adjustments to the layout or construction of hurdles and railings mooted in the Hide case did not affect the "integrity and ethos" of jump racing.
"What was fundamentally at issue here was not the suitability of this hurdle, taken on its own, or the suitability of the railings' upright, taken on its own," added Lord Justice Davis.
"It was a combination of matters: the location of this particular hurdle so close to this railings' upright (with its particular construction) that gave rise to the problem."
