Anyone's horse kicked a person and been sued

[Santa_Claus]

no the horse was another livery's horse not the YO. the YO was sued as they owned the property and it was claimed the livery should have an individual paddock and the YO had responsibility not to have a dangerous (never done anything before!) horse in with the livery who was kicked horse!

 

[GTs]

[ QUOTE ]
If my horse was injured by kicking, as long as it was through no fault of my own, I would probably ask for them to cover his vet fees and livery until he recovered.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I would refuse - these things happen when you turn horses out, it can happen to my horse, it can happen to your horse - it is part of owning horses. Are you going to get the YO to pay if your horse got stuck in the eye by a twig? Or slid on the wet ground? Horses are dumb and get injured, you have to learn to handle it.

 

[Skhosu]

I agree with GTS

 

[Mid]

"no the horse was another livery's horse not the YO. the YO was sued as they owned the property and it was claimed the livery should have an individual paddock and the YO had responsibility not to have a dangerous (never done anything before!) horse in with the livery who was kicked horse! "

I'm talking about a different person

"And I would refuse - these things happen when you turn horses out"

Not when you turn horses out. Rather more like if it got loose at a show ground like someone described earlier.

 

[Skhosu]

If it got loose by total accident...it happens. If it gets loose by negligence...different story,

 

[GTs]

These things happen - what happened if it was your horse that was involved and it ended up kicking an incredibly expensive horse - it is a very slippery slope you are leading us down.

Perfect example - Barbaro, his injury is a result from a bump from Brother Derek. Now we all know Brother Derek bumps, we saw it again in the Breeders Cup. Should Brother Derek's owner's pay for Barbaro's vet fees, his loss of earnings, and loss of stud fees for 2007. We are talking approximately $70,000 in vet bills, likely $2,000,000 in loss of earnings, and up to $10,000,000 for the 2007 stud season, a total of $12,070,000 - or do you classify it as part of racing, and call it an accident?

 

[Mid]

If you race a horse you run the risk of his death.

If you enter a local gymkhana and tie your horse to the box, only to turn around a moment later and find he's had his bum kicked in by a pony that got loose through negligence? Surely these are two different things?

If I was injured by the same horse, I would not sue. Probably because I wouldn't have to pay my medical bills xD

 

[OWLIE185]

Unfortunately in this day and age of of litigation it is essential that yards protect themselves. They need to carry out an annual Health and Safety assesment of the yard and then put procedures in place. If they do not do this then if there is an accident which ends up going to court their defence is very much weekened.
Many insurance companies will settle out of court to avoid what could become substantial court fees.

 

[Puppy]

[ QUOTE ]
When it comes to horses unfortunatly the judgements are made by people who know very little about the nature of horses which is why the judgements are so poor a lot of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]


hmmm, the House of Lords judgement in the case "Mirvahedy v Henley" would indicate otherwise......... As well as the Animals Act 1971.

Now, although I agree there are some ridiculous claims out there - which yes, far too frequently insurance companies choose to settle before dragging it through court. (n.b. this does NOT necessarily mean they are admitting liablility - merely trying to save on legal costs).

However, on the other side of the coin, I do think that a majority of people misunderstand many of the tort cases they hear about and end up with terribly inaccurate and distorted views about such litigation. I do get frustrated that people like to moan about "compensation culture" when they don't really know the first thing about it.

 

[GTs]

[ QUOTE ]
If you race a horse you run the risk of his death.

If you enter a local gymkhana and tie your horse to the box, only to turn around a moment later and find he's had his bum kicked in by a pony that got loose through negligence? Surely these are two different things?

[/ QUOTE ]

No they are the same - horses being horses.

 

[Santa_Claus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about a different person

[/ QUOTE ]

I was reffering to the case where girl recently got awarded £2.something off YOs insurance (by the courts) after another livery's horse kicked her when she was attempting to catch her own horse in the same field

 

[dwi]

[ QUOTE ]

she was also advised that after that they would never be able to take the horse out in public or at shows because if it kicked again it would be already a 'known' kicker.

[/ QUOTE ]

My horse kicked me and put me in hospital when we first got her as she was traumatised by previous handlers. She doesn't kick now but does this mean I wouldn't be insured for public liability if we went to RC and she kicked someone?

 

[KatB]

FFS, horses are horses, we all know they are big animals that have a mind of their own, we all know they can act out of character! Sueing if you get injured being around horses in my eyes is ridiculous. If it is too risky a business, don't get involved with them. I have worked on yards, been kicked/bitten/fallen off, yet its all part of being around big animals with a mind of their own!!

Yes I can see where people are coming from when they say they have been injured/it has effected their lives etc etc, but how will money solve an incurable injury?! IMO, alot of it is greed, and it winds me up no end. We choose to take the risks, and yet people still turn around and point the fingure of blame for horses being horses.

*KatB climbs off soapbox*

 

[Puppy]

[ QUOTE ]

I was reffering to the case where girl recently got awarded £2.something off YOs insurance (by the courts) after another livery's horse kicked her when she was attempting to catch her own horse in the same field

[/ QUOTE ]


This thread was about it, and has a link to the H&H report on the story:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1325045/page/0/fpart/1/vc/1

 

[spooks]

[ QUOTE ]
They got £3.5k for a broken toe! .

[/ QUOTE ]
neddy stood on my foot 3 months ago and broke my toe...do you think its to late to sue myself ?!! lol

 

[Puppy]

[ QUOTE ]
FFS, horses are horses, we all know they are big animals that have a mind of their own, we all know they can act out of character! Sueing if you get injured being around horses in my eyes is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes they are, and the courts recognise this to an extent (particularly the House of Lords in the case I mentioned, they gave it great consideration). However, have you never been to an event where someone has a horse there which they clearly can't control?? I know I have, and its makes me mad that they are risking mine and my own horses' personal safety by bringing them out in public when they can't handle it.

Purely as an example, I can think of a particular yard near to myself which brought a horse to our local show who I knew the history of very well. The horse was not suitable to be in that environment and they had so many horses (16.2hh plus) and children (novices as supposed riding school

) handling them

that they ended up causing mayhem - think loose horse with bridle hanging round his neck steaming round the show ground. Now as far as I'm concerned - yes horses get loose at events, I've taken a tumble and had one of mine run off on a couple of occassions - however, they shouldn't have brought such an animal out somewhere like that and left children to handle him. Had a serious accident occurred as a result of such behaviour, to me or my horse, or anyone else there, I don't see how they should escape being found negligent just because "horses are horses"

There has to be a point where you draw the line and say, yes they are unpredicatable animals, but people need to show what is known in tort law as "taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm".

As I mentioned, the Animal Act 1971, (Article 2 I believe) considers what characteristics are typical of a species and to what extent a "keeper" can be found liable for the animals actions.

And regarding the purpose of suing. No, it's correct that no money can ever compensate for the loss caused to personal injury victims of negligence cases. However, if there is no solution to be had in the criminal courts for these victims, what other solution is there to be had?! It's all very well reading cases in the press and making judgements, but if you actually read the full case details of these cases (as I do frequently) then you may change your tact from this typical "disgust at compensation culture" to that of realising that this is the only way of holding such offenders accountable in a court, atributting responsibility to them (which tends to mean more to the victim than the pay out) and punishing them in the one way possible in a civil court.

 

[KatB]

Yes I agree completely with the thought if someone has clearly been negligent, then yes they should be made responsible for they're actions, and in that case the only fitting punishment is down the route of the courts, and inevitably a compensation payout.
Howver, in most of these cases the punishment doesnt actually apply to the person who was negligent in the first place, it hits insurance companies, and then ultimately us everyday people who have insurance and have to pay out increased premiums. Surely some sort of punishment that would actually effect the negligent party full on would be more fitting?! Also, I agree victims of negligence should be entitled to treatment being paid for, etc, but not these massively inflated pay outs that equate to nothing but greed.

I am not hitting out at the act of compensation when it is deserved, just when it doesnt stand to punish who needs to be punished, therefore punishes innocent parties.

 

[ljm]

Quote : 'I am not hitting out at the act of compensation when it is deserved, just when it doesnt stand to punish who needs to be punished, therefore punishes innocent parties. '

Totally agree, in my case I would be after the money for physio and to make the dopey woman pay more attention in future. As it was this 'lovely childs pony' reared up and smashed the childs face in the class....

 

[filly190]

In my case a dippy visitor would'nt listen and keep her distance and my horse accidently trod on her. She successfully sued us, under public liability of our contents insurance because our horse was in our garden (thats where our stables are). She was paid £3.5k for a broken toe. She really milked it, stating the hosptial had to cut off her expensive boots, her clothes were ruined and she had to have six weeks off work (self employed!).

It was'nt my horse insurance that took the case on, I was really shocked that my house hold contents insurance policy (Direct Line) just took the case on and paid out.

Because our horses are kept in our garden, they view them as domestic pets and therefore they come under public liability the same as dogs. When I spoke to Direct Line and said what about if I went out hacking, they said they would again cover me for public liability.

So I suppose Direct Line was good in that respect. Since my claim I wont/cant allow visitors to be anywhere near this particular horse and she is now known to be danergous to Direct Line. So I have to now guard against it.

I'm going on holiday and have house sitters coming to look after all the animals and house and I am worried sick in case an incident occurs. I have spoken to the girl house sitting and she has agreed to put it in writing that she accepts horses are dangerous etc and should anything happen to her, she will not sue. This is what I have to do, to protect myself, a lesson learnt from my previous experience.

 

[burtie]

[ QUOTE ]
So I suppose Direct Line was good in that respect. Since my claim I wont/cant allow visitors to be anywhere near this particular horse and she is now known to be danergous to Direct Line. So I have to now guard against it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep it will also effect you should anything happen at shows, same as my friend was told, in her case this was a pony club pony, had the case gone any further chances are they would have to have sold the pony as a "dangerous" pony at pny club events was a big no no. The whole incident was not the ponies fault either.

 

[Mid]

"I was reffering to the case where girl recently got awarded £2.something off YOs insurance (by the courts) after another livery's horse kicked her when she was attempting to catch her own horse in the same field"

Ah

I was talking about someone down the road who got kicked by her OWN horse, and sued the yard owner £200k.

 

[Seahorse]

Yes, my old horse kicked somebody at a show and broke their leg. They tried to sue me but I had 2 very good witnesses that said he was riding too close to my horse. We were warming up for the Discovery at Ardingly in the outside arena.
This man just kept cantereing past me really close. At one point I was just walking around the edge of the arena and he cantered up behind me so close that our stirrups clashed together!
I changed the rein so he would be coming towards me as Rocky had started laying his ears flat back every time this man came near us, but so did he and the next time he came up behind us Rocky kicked out and caught the man just under his knee.
I didn't hear anything at the time but a few weeks later I recieved a letter from BSJA and their insurance company offering to represent me.
As I said I had 2 very good witnesses (a MFH and a top event rider) who backed me up that this man was riding too close, and nothing ever came of it.
It was a horrible experience tho, and I became very worried about warming up at shows for a long time after.

Sam x