£12,500 damages for man who broke arm in horse fall

[flying_change]

I think I'll elaborate on that a bit.

Firstly, I wonder if there's a correlation to the people who are saying the amount of damages is too much, and their age. Someone at school, living with parents, or at university does not suffer much financial loss if they are injured. However, if someone is in full-time employment, and cannot work for 10 weeks because of an injury, then why should his employer keep paying his salary ? £12,000 is not excessive given that he would have been earning a professional salary. TBH, if I was off work because an injury meant that I couldnt write, type, drive, and even had problems making phone calls, then my claim for lost earnings would have been similar.

A lot of people have derided this rider for... well, not being an experienced rider. For not knowing that saying 'whoa' doesnt make a horse stop. For not knowing how to make a horse stop. For not being able to ride at trot. All I can say is that I'm sure there are things that you are not experienced in or adept at, and I hope you receive the same derision for it from those who are expert. Surely a mark of maturity is to help those who are novices, not to laugh at them. I was a novice once. So were you.

And come to that, one of the best trainers and competitors I know uses a voice aid. So do people who drive horses. So using the voice is not really so stupid, is it?

I also read of people laughing at the man for complaining about pain from nettle stings. Well I dont laugh at anyone in pain. If you want to laugh at him, roll around in some nettles first, then you can laugh.

RS

 

[pixie]

Well said! I think you said what I was thinking, but in a far more eloquent manner!

 

[tiggersdad]

Ive read with interest this thread but the main points have been missed. Signing a disclaimer does not stop someone suing you. The cost of investigating malicious claims is very high even if they never go to court. Common sense suggests horse riding is dangerous, I fell off 12 times in one week even though I have been riding for forty five years. The insurance companies do not want to insure you and soon they will not and riding for hire and reward will disappear. Locally 12 riding schools have closed and many children have lost an opportunity to learn riding , the suers have got what they wanted no one to enjoy themselve because they are selfish bigots.

 

[flying_change]

Thankyou !

RS

 

[RobinHood]

I'm not quite sure where I site on this one. Yes the man knew that riding is a risk sport and he still chose to take part, but maybe the riding school should have been more careful with a group of complete novices.

This is the first thing that I've heard about no riding without stirrups at pony club rallies (or maybe people are talking about pc centres?). We seem to spend more time without stirrups than we do with them during lessons, and at camp I rode bareback more than I rode with a saddle. We even played bareback bucket elimination where you have to jump whilst holding hands with your partner. I think people miss out on valuable riding experiences due to h&s and the standard of riding taught at riding schools will suffer as a result.

 

[Puppy]

[ QUOTE ]
Signing a disclaimer does not stop someone suing you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, it does not always prevent someone from suing you - due to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 - sorry, your point is...?

[ QUOTE ]
The cost of investigating malicious claims is very high even if they never go to court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I don't understand this comment, please could you elaborate?

[ QUOTE ]
Common sense suggests horse riding is dangerous, I fell off 12 times in one week even though I have been riding for forty five years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, hence why riding centers must be expected to meet a certain standard; exercising professional skill and care and taking resonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. Given that riding is a dangerous sport surely it is only correct that we can expect high safety standards and hence find those who fail to meet them to be negligent?!

[ QUOTE ]
the suers have got what they wanted no one to enjoy themselve because they are selfish bigots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really very seriously doubt that was the motive behind this claim and I would be carefully about making such insulting accusations on a public forum!

[ QUOTE ]
Ive read with interest this thread but the main points have been missed

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I think you may be the one missing the main point - like how the laws of negligence work!

 

[Puppy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'll elaborate on that a bit.

Firstly, I wonder if there's a correlation to the people who are saying the amount of damages is too much, and their age. Someone at school, living with parents, or at university does not suffer much financial loss if they are injured. However, if someone is in full-time employment, and cannot work for 10 weeks because of an injury, then why should his employer keep paying his salary ? £12,000 is not excessive given that he would have been earning a professional salary. TBH, if I was off work because an injury meant that I couldnt write, type, drive, and even had problems making phone calls, then my claim for lost earnings would have been similar.

A lot of people have derided this rider for... well, not being an experienced rider. For not knowing that saying 'whoa' doesnt make a horse stop. For not knowing how to make a horse stop. For not being able to ride at trot. All I can say is that I'm sure there are things that you are not experienced in or adept at, and I hope you receive the same derision for it from those who are expert. Surely a mark of maturity is to help those who are novices, not to laugh at them. I was a novice once. So were you.

And come to that, one of the best trainers and competitors I know uses a voice aid. So do people who drive horses. So using the voice is not really so stupid, is it?

I also read of people laughing at the man for complaining about pain from nettle stings. Well I dont laugh at anyone in pain. If you want to laugh at him, roll around in some nettles first, then you can laugh.

RS

[/ QUOTE ]


*claps* Thank you RS - very well said!!

 

[Puppy]

[ QUOTE ]
Pixie, i have to disagree with you, everyone knows that riding has an element of danger to it

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, hence why (especially as a novice) but also generally, as a riding establishment's client, you trust their judgement and professional duty to you; to ensure that they act responsibly, and take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. Hence also, why if they break this you could be seriously injured and those who are negligent enough to put others in that situation ought to be held accountable.

 

[Puppy]

[ QUOTE ]
But even practising in a school wouldnt guarantee the rider would have stayed on, i've been riding for a very long time and i still fall off, its a fact of life
Even if they walked for the whole hack, there's nothing to say a black bag might have been dumped and spooked one of the horses. Nobody can give 100% guarantee that a horse is never gonna spook.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but in either of the above scenarios then the riding school would more than likely have been deemed to have "taken resonable steps", hence it would not have qualified as negligence and made the claim unsucessful.

 

[Puppy]

Huntress - out of interest was the claim against you successful?

 

[Puppy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Then they took us out on a trek."

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't sound like a trek to me! I think the phrase hack would be more appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.lasswadestables.com/hacking.html

 

[flying_change]

 

[Puppy]

[ QUOTE ]
I would never dream of doing something like sueing

[/ QUOTE ]

Well thats rather a sweeping statement, and one I don't think you can really make until you've been the victim of a tort. I don't suppose that greater percentage of people who do so ever aspire to making tortious claims!

[ QUOTE ]
how stupid do you have to be to not realise that horses are big, unpredictable animals!

[/ QUOTE ]

Contrary to what many seem to think, the courts do realise this, and they also recognise that therefore they deserve to be managed in a manner that "takes resonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm" - hence the finding of this case, because those in possession of the full facts (which of course none of us are) deemed this standard of care not to have been met.


Negligence is a last resort tort - it does not have an easy criteria to fulfil, and proving a case is nowhere near as simple, black and white, or as frequently sucessful as many of the tabloid reports would have you believe.

 

[flying_change]

"Doesn't sound like a trek to me! I think the phrase hack would be more appropriate."

The stables themselves use the term 'trek'. They use the term 'hack' to mean something that includes canter.

RS

 

[k9h]

The insurance company decided to settle out of court (so in other words it was kind of - for them)

 

[Puppy]

[ QUOTE ]
For those who keep ranting about health & safety stopping everything they should "get a life" by reading the Health & Safety Executive’s campaign for sensible safety

http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2006/c06021.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, I feel it should be pointed out that the ongoing stresses on H&S actually help riding establishments. It helps to clarify exactly what is deemed to be "taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm", instead of it being left for the court to decide totally subjectively on the day of whatever case (which would of course lead to varying standards and injust cases).

By setting a standard, and allowing places to know exactly what is expected of them, this actually reduces the liklihood of successful negligent cases against them. (assuming they stick to H&S guidelines

)

 

[Puppy]

[ QUOTE ]
The insurance company decided to settle out of court (so in other words it was kind of - for them)

[/ QUOTE ]

Erm, no! Sorry but that does NOT mean that negligence was found. And hence why I asked because I was quite sure <u>from what you'd said</u> (no offence, but obviously I don't know the case so its only reasonable to say that) that a court would not have found negligence in this case. That means that the insurance company made a judgement call; that it would be cheaper and less hassle to pay out, than it would be to drag it through the court.

THIS is where insurance premiums go up - cause insurance co.s make this call so frequently - NOT because negligence is frequently found. Unfortunately far too many people misinterpret this kind of scenario and then get very misguided ideas about negligence claims.

 

[suestowford]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would never dream of doing something like sueing

[/ QUOTE ]

Well thats rather a sweeping statement, and one I don't think you can really make until you've been the victim of a tort. I don't suppose that greater percentage of people who do so ever aspire to making tortious claims!

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. I was the victim of a road accident some years ago and was advised by the attending police to claim against the driver. In the end I did make a claim, it covered things like having to get a taxi to &amp; from work (seeing as I couldn't climb up onto a bus, or drive my car). It also covered the bill I got from the ambulance service for being taken to hospital. I never thought I would be suing anyone but I'm glad I did or I would be out of pocket as well as having a sore leg!

 

[Jiffy]

*Rolls eyes* OMG

Puppy has found this thread at last.

I did begin composing a new reply last night, but got bored before it was finished.

*Jiffy goes back to knitting*

 

[Mr_Ed]

Quote: I think people miss out on valuable riding experiences due to h&amp;s and the standard of riding taught at riding schools will suffer as a result.

When you talk about "valuable riding experiences", I take it that you are referring to many of the things that people are no longer allowed to do supposedly because of "health &amp; safety". Riding without stirrups is one such case that has been cited in these threads.

Riding without stirrups has been beneficial in my riding career and I still ride without them on occasion.

In my mind, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that this activity should no longer take place AS LONG AS the person in control of the activity is competent to assess the risks and can reduce them to an acceptable level. Health &amp; safety doesn't stop the activity -- rather it is often the inability of those in control of activities to correctly assess the risks. If people can't assess the risks correctly, it's far easier to pull the shutters down on the activity to avoid any potential litigation in the event of an accident. So the activity stops and clients miss out. If risks are assessed and minimised then the potential for an accident occurring is greatly reduced. But I don't think it's fair to blame those at the coalface for sometimes making poor judgements - I don't think it's their fault. There's been a general lack of training in risk assessment for those who work professionally in the industry.

Riding is a risk sport, isn't it? Yes, that's true. We all know that there are inherent risks with riding or simply being around horses. But often many of the risks can be minimised and controlled. Safety needs to be kept in perspective and rather than "health &amp; safety" preventing us from doing things, we need to look at how we can do things safely so that we protect people, horses and keep businesses in business.

As Bill Callaghan, Chair of the Health &amp; Safety Commission said when launching the Health &amp; Safety Executive's sensible risk management campaign “Some of the ‘health and safety’ stories are just myths. There are also some instances where health and safety is used as an excuse to justify unpopular decisions such as closing facilities. But behind many of the stories, there is at least a grain of truth – someone really has made a stupid decision. We’re determined to tackle all three. My message is that if you’re using health and safety to stop everyday activities – get a life and let others get on with theirs.”

Sensible risk management IS about:

• Ensuring that workers and the public are properly protected;
• Providing overall benefit to society by balancing benefits and risks, with a focus on reducing real risks – both those which arise more often and those with serious consequences;
• Enabling innovation and learning, not stifling them;
• Ensuring that those who create risks manage them responsibly and understand that failure to manage real risks responsibly is likely to lead to robust action; and
• Enabling individuals to understand that as well as the right to protection, they also have to exercise responsibility.

Sensible risk management IS NOT about:

• Creating a totally risk free society;
• Generating useless paperwork mountains;
• Scaring people by exaggerating or publicising trivial risks;
• Stopping important recreational and learning activities for individuals where the risks are managed; and
• Reducing protection of people from risks that cause real harm and suffering.

 

[emma69]

Health and safety requires you (in very basic terms) to assess the likelihood of an occurence and the magnitude of occurence. You then weigh up whether the action should be taken. The majority of large companies do this, not to mention the armed forces, schools and other similar organizations. When I trained in performing a risk assessment, we were all told to write a risk assessment of our own, but to leave the activity field blank, we then had to decide whether something should be done or not - the activities ranged from crossing the road, making a cup of tea (that was mine) to walking on railway tracks etc. It's amazing how many people thought they shouldn't make tea at the beginning of the course. By the end, you understand how to review them, and how to apply them - part of the trouble is that if there is any risk at all, people decide not to undertake something - that's not correct application of a risk assessment - there is a degree of risk in everything you do.

Incidently, I was talking to my instructor last night about the differences between north american and european riders, and she was saying the key difference is the fact that the european riders spend so much of their time working without stirrups and bareback, they have much better natural affinity with the horse - wouldn't it be sad to see that change because of badly applied health and safety regulations?

 

[Mr_Ed]

Couldn't agree more!

 

[Puppy]

[ QUOTE ]
*Rolls eyes* OMG

Puppy has found this thread at last.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Puppy found this thread at the weekend but was faaaar too hungover to answer at the time.

Yesterday I couldn't ride or row thanks to the weather

so it seemed a good day to partake in some law!!

And hey, it seems only right, they do call me "Tort girl" round these parts

 

[tiggersdad]

Insurance companies are in business to make money and they do not want to insure riding schools. Example a local riding school had a rider fall off because a bird flew up. Several months later the rider put in a claim for loss of earnings etc etc. At the time she got back on and said she was OK. The insurance company has now to prepare for court. This involved solicitors, expert witnesses, taking statements from other riders etc etc etc. The riders solicitors dropped the case because they realised it was going to be fought in court however the insurance still had spent a great deal already. The rider had signed a disclaimer! These people selfish actions are closing the riding schools down.
Can I sue the person who gave me my first lessons 40 years ago cos Im still falling off? I willingly participate in a risk sport and the only person responsible for my actions are myself. If you dont want to be hurt horse riding DONT DO IT.

 

[emma69]

Something like a bird flying up would not be seen as something the riding school could have prevented - most likely anyway. You cannot disclaim against negligence - a piece of paper saying as much is worthless. For example, if the person could prove that the birds had caused similar problems, and nothing had been done to remove a colony of birds that lvied right outside the arena, then that could be negligent. A bird in the woods out on a hack, there isn't really anything they can do, however, if the person was a nervouse / beginner / unsteady rider, was the horse suitable? A skitty young 4 year old might spook at soemthing that an older schoolmaster would not have done - if she was wrongly horsed, and that caused the accident, then it would be negligent.

Whilst I was never the subject of litigation, the yard where I worked was (never sucessfully) I have also been called upon to provide opinion on the suitability of horses and tack by an insurance company - it's very subjective, and incredibly hard to probve negligence in the majority of the cases.

 

[ArleyMoss]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm going to get shot down for this but..

Before taking absolute beginners on a hack shouldn't they atleast have tried anything that they're going to do in the hack in the school and see how comfortable they feel. The guy said that the instructors started trotting, even though he said none of them could handle it. Surely they should establish things like pace in the school before they leave, so that when they do go out, they go at the fastest pace that everyone in the group feels comfortable, i.e. in this case walk - so the instructors should *never* go any faster than this, unless its an emergency. There should also be an instructor following up behind to make sure that noone gets left behind as we all know that if horses get left behind they tend to want to catch up quickly!

Yes, riding is a risk sport, however I feel in this case the risk was heightened by what could almost be described as neglectful behaviour from these "instructors"

[/ QUOTE ]

You wont be getting shot from me, I agree with!

The school should of gave better advice and care of beginners!

 

[emerald2006]

I have to agree with pixies comment at the beginning of all this. i used to be an instructor on a riding school as well as head girl on the yard and made it very clear to all the instrcutors (as it was made clear to me by my boss) that any clients wanting to go for a hack around the farm MUST go into the school to be assessed and if we didnt feel they were safe enough to go out then they we would give them a lesson instead and TBH most clients were happy with this. there were some that i couldnt take out due to the ground being wet or the weather being very nasty and they completly understood and we made it into a fun lesson.l those who have nvr ridden before and who i personally didnt feel they were secure enough to go out actaully said that they were glad they had a lesson first and would come back for a hack. i am not saying that this man is right by getting compensation cause its not right howver on the flip side the riding school should have assesed them and told them a little bit more than what they did. this is why the insurance is now so high. soon riding centres wil be no more. runs and hides before getting fired at!

 

[amage]

i fully agree with pixie. and any credibilty that place had is in my book completely shot to pieces when you look at their website. there is a pic of a child riding on the beach in runners!! kid looks like she can ride but even so there is no way in hell she should be let out in runners. and with regard to what someone said about two young AIs being abit daunted about standing up to ten business men...hello they are there to ensure safety...if their job entails standing up to people then get on with it or else they should be replaced. its riding schools like this that are shooting the premiums up for everyone else and they damn well should have to pay costs. if it had been a child hurt everyone would be up in arms but just because its a salesman they are unsupportive and scornful. as for him saying whoah boy...well he said himsself he had never been on horse, he sees something which is commonly portrayed in film/tv as being the solution to the situation he was in and tried to apply it. fair play to him for thinking that clearly instead of just screaming.

 

[tiggersdad]

I think no amounts of risk assesments forming filling etc etc will stop riders falling off! In my previous post the horse which jumped at the bird was an old schoolmaster with an exemplary record. Most riding schools I have visited are run by caring people who do everything possible to stop accidents. Thirty years ago many were poorly run with uncaring owners. Any riding school with a poor H/S record is uninsurable.

 

[fizz-tally]

having liveried &amp; ridden at lasswade i am saying nothing,other than it was a hell of alot better when mrs beck owned it!!!!!!