Legal Analysis: Goode v. Angland and the Civil Liability Act 2002

This case study provides a legal analysis and critique of the case Goode v. Angland in relation to the Civil Liability Act 2002. It discusses the balance between personal responsibility and corrective justice, particularly concerning negligence claims in recreational activities like professional horse racing. The analysis covers the court's interpretation of 'recreational activity' under Section 5K and the defense provided by Section 5L of the Act. The study references key legal principles and relevant case law, ultimately concluding that the judgment in Goode v. Angland appropriately balances individual responsibility with the need to protect defendants from negligence claims when participation in an activity is voluntary. Desklib provides students access to similar solved assignments and study resources.

Legal Analysis and
Critique

Contents
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..............................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
The Civil Liability Act is a legislation which was enacted in the year 2002 with an aim to
ensure that the people that are injured have an ability to seek the redress by the court system. It is
applied in many circumstances wherein the negligence forms the part of claim. In order to
establish negligence under this statute, an individual has to prove that there was duty of care and
it was breached which caused injury, loss or damage to the plaintiff. Negligence is failure to
exercise the care which a responsible person must exercise in same circumstances1. This essay
will cover the extent to which the decision of the case Goode v. Angland have reflected
appropriate balance between principle of the personal responsibility and the corrective justice.
MAIN BODY
In a case of Goode v. Angland, the plaintiff was a professional jockey who sustained
some serious injuries while horseracing as his horse fell at the time of race. It alleged that Tye
Angland was liable for intentional veering of his horse across its path which caused it to fall and
stumble. The defendant has argued that he was following the path of horse in the front and does
not veer intentionally in the path of plaintiff’s horse. This argument was accepted by Trial court.
Racing NSW determined that horse of plaintiff have been uncontrollably advancing and have
move in the awkward position itself when it just stumbled and fell. It was found by Trial court
that professional horse racing is recreational activity as per Section 5K of Civil Liability Act and
there is a complete defense under Section 5L of the Act. AN appeal was filed in North South
Wales Court of Appeal wherein it dismissed the appeal on following grounds which includes
initially that the recreational activity as per Section 5K involves three limbs, first is
characterization as any of the sport, and professional horse racing have ability to satisfy this limb
as there can be no difference between the sports that is undertaken for the recreational And
professional purpose2. Additionally, Trial court is correct in its use of the photographic and video
1 "Tort Law. Civil Liability For Criminal Acts. Illinois Expands Civil Liability Of Drug Traffickers. Drug Dealer
Liability Act, Pub. Act 89-293, 1995 Ill. Legis. Serv. 3156 (West) (To Be Codified At Ill. Comp. Stat. Ch. 740,
Section 57/1-85 (1994))" (2016) 109(3)
2 "Civil Liability Under The Federal Securities Act" (2019) 50(1)

footage for the fact finding. This requires the expert opinion rather than being used as the single
source to the deduce facts.
This case holds the importance as it has broaden an interpretation of the recreational
activities by including the professional sports within its ambit. Whenever an activity involves
any significant risk of harm, it will be included within the ambit of Section 5L. Moreover, the
application of defence under Section 5L is also widened wherein this defence can not only be
taken against the personal injury but also involves the harm which can result in property damage,
death or economic loss.
The concept of personal responsibility under the traditional view of the Tort law is
mainly focused on individual. In case of negligence, High Court have continued to put its
emphasizes on the importance of the individual responsibility, autonomy and the choice in
various number of cases. In the case of Nagle v. Rottnest Island Authority, High court held that
an authority owed the duty of the care to the man who has dived in swimming pool hole. It held
that the person who owes the duty towards others must also take into account the possibility that
it may also fail to take a proper care of its own safety. Then in the case of Romeo v. Conservation
Commission of Northern Territory, High court that when the danger is obvious and defendants
may not have to warn all against the obvious danger. It is the plaintiff who has to and must
always protect itself3.
As per Section 5K, recreational activity includes any sport which may or may not be an
organized activity, an activity that is engaged in for the relaxation, enjoyment or leisure and
activity which is engaged in such place wherein people get engaged for the purpose of
enjoyment, leisure and relaxation. In the case of Goode v. Angland, plaintiff have participated in
the horse racing which is a kind of professional sports and the plaintiff suffered injury due to the
negligence of defendant. Then in Section 5L, its defence is provided which states that the person
shall not be liable in the negligence for the harm that is suffered by other person as the result of
materialization of the obvious risk in the dangerous recreational activity wherein the plaintiff is
engaged. Its application is valid irrespective of the fact that the plaintiff was aware of risk or not.
This provides for the personal responsibility of the plaintiff in case of negligence when it is
engaged in the recreational activity which is dangerous.
3 Cullen, Ian, Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW Young Lawyers, 2002)

In the Civil Liability Amendment Bill, 2003, a reform was suggested which emphasized
on the concept of personal responsibility and the requirement of every person to accept its
responsibility for its own actions without losing at someone else to blame for any of the
misfortune suffered4. Hence, it can be said that the judgment provided under the case of Goode v.
Angland provides for the principle of personal responsibility of plaintiff as it has voluntarily
participated in the horseracing which is a recreational activity and it was aware or not aware of
the risk, it must take the individual responsibility for the danger or injury which is suffered by it
during the recreational activity. Therefore, there is a correct balance between the principle of
personal responsibility and the corrective justice as it is duty of the court to protect the defendant
against the claim of negligence as participation in activity is voluntary and an individual must
take its own responsibility when participating in it.
CONCLUSION
It is concluded from this that the principle of personal responsibility came out from the
common law after the cases which claims for the compensation in case of negligence of others
that resulted in suffering harm or injury. The case of Goode v. Angland has been successful in
making the right balance between personal responsibility and corrective justice as it is important
to protect defendant who has been put against the claim of negligence.
4 "Judges. Civil Liability. Negligence In Performance Of Ministerial Act" (2020) 47(6)

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
"Civil Liability Under The Federal Securities Act" (2019) 50(1)
"Judges. Civil Liability. Negligence In Performance Of Ministerial Act" (2020) 47(6)
"Tort Law. Civil Liability For Criminal Acts. Illinois Expands Civil Liability Of Drug
Traffickers. Drug Dealer Liability Act, Pub. Act 89-293, 1995 Ill. Legis. Serv. 3156
(West) (To Be Codified At Ill. Comp. Stat. Ch. 740, Section 57/1-85 (1994))" (2016)
109(3)
Cullen, Ian, Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW Young Lawyers, 2002)