A NSW lawsuit claims that a four-year-old girl was injured, including having her hearing permanently damaged, when a horse threw her during a country show jumping competition.
Through her “next friend,” Anthony James Robinson, Scarlett Anne Robinson is bringing legal action against Riverina Equestrian Association and Equestrian Australia Ltd.
On November 4, 2017, they coordinated the NSW Country Show Jumping Championships.
She is also suing Chloe Mannell, the horse’s rider, and Charles Sturt University, the owner of the property where the event took place.
Tuesday, Justice Michael Walton of the NSW Supreme Court approved a request made by Scarlett’s attorneys for the transfer of her civil case from the District Court to the Supreme Court.
The judge stated, “My general judgment is that there is a potential that the sum to be paid, if the plaintiff is successful, may exceed the District Court’s jurisdictional limit.”
The upper bound is $750,000.
Her barrister has estimated the quantum of damages as between about $825,000 and $1.02 million, figures disputed by the defendants.
The little girl had gone to the championships with her mother and another child.
‘During the event, the horse came within a short distance to the plaintiff,’ the judge said.
‘It is alleged that the (rider) did not maintain control of the horse.
‘The horse fell and landed on the plaintiff.’
The responsibility and/or extent of the duty owed by the four defendants to Scarlett, as well as damages, are issues between the parties.
The court stated that the evidence showed that she had suffered a fractured skull, significant deafness or permanent hearing loss in her left ear, facial nerve paralysis, lung contusion, and mild traumatic brain damage.
He cited a number of medical records, one of which said that she had a moderate traumatic brain injury from which she had recovered well cognitively.
However, he made mention of behavioral and emotional shifts that are impacting social development, sibling relationships, and classroom involvement.
The defendants argued that the medical data did not warrant a determination of damages in excess of $500,000.
The only physical restrictions mentioned by the girl’s parents related to balancing tasks and her aptitude for home duties and leisure activities were recognized by the experts.
However, the court stated that the overall evidence supported a determination reached by the girl’s attorney at this point in the proceedings.
This “gives the appearance that there is a possibility that, should the Plaintiff prevail in her claim, the amount of damages may exceed the District Court’s jurisdictional limit.”