Legal Case Summary
Wooldridge v Sumner [1963] 2 QB 43
TORT – NEGLIGENCE – DEFENCE OF VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA – SPORTS
Facts
The claimant was a photographer working at a horse show. He was situated within the ring where the horse show took place (rather than behind the spectator barriers) when one of the horses galloped towards him at a significant speed after the rider lost control of it, knocking him down. The claimant sued the defendant in the tort of negligence.
Issues
If negligence is established, a defendant may still avoid liability by raising the defence of volenti non fit injuria. This defence applies to cases where the claimant consents to the risk of injury, and prevents the claimant from succeeding if that risk manifests by negating the duty of care.
The issue was whether the defence applied in this case, given that the claimant was within the ring rather than behind the protective barriers.
Decision / Outcome
The High Court held the defendant not liable.
The High Court held that for the defence of volenti non fit injuria to apply, it was not enough that the claimant consented to a generic risk of injury. Rather, the claimant had to consent to the lack of reasonable care which produced the risk. This requires the claimant to have complete knowledge and understanding of the extent and nature of the risk.
In the case sporting events, however, spectators can be taken to know of and consent to the risk of the sportsman making errors of judgement or skill, given the fast-paced nature of the activity, unless the sportsman was acting with deliberate or reckless disregard for the spectator’s safety.
In this case, the sportsman merely made an error of judgement, and the claimant had chosen to position himself close enough to risk such errors affecting him.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Wooldridge v Sumner [1963] 2 QB 43 as it stands in English law. The principles set out by the Court of Appeal (not the High Court as the summary states — the judgment was delivered by Diplock LJ in the Court of Appeal) remain good law and continue to be cited in cases involving spectators and sporting participants.
One factual inaccuracy worth noting: the summary describes this as a High Court decision, but Wooldridge v Sumner was decided by the Court of Appeal. Readers should be aware of this distinction.
The broader legal framework described — including the requirement that a claimant consent to the specific lack of reasonable care rather than merely a general risk, and the standard applied to errors of judgment in sporting contexts — remains consistent with subsequent case law, including Smoldon v Whitworth [1997] and Caldwell v Maguire [2001] EWCA Civ 1054, which built upon these principles. There have been no statutory developments that materially alter the analysis of volenti in this sporting context, though it should be noted that the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 may limit reliance on volenti where exclusion notices are involved in certain consumer or business contexts — a point not addressed in the summary but unlikely to affect its core analysis of this case.
