A professional jockey riding in a race as part of their occupation is not engaged in a 'recreational activity' within the meaning of s 19 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas), and accordingly the dangerous recreational activity defence under s 20 does not apply to claims by professional jockeys injured during races. The standard of care owed by one jockey to another is that of a reasonable jockey in the circumstances, informed by industry standards such as the two lengths clearance policy, and a breach of that policy that causes interference and injury constitutes negligence rather than a mere error of judgment. The voluntary assumption of risk defence does not succeed where a professional jockey accepts the inherent risks of racing but not the specific risk of a fellow jockey's negligent riding.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.