M_G
Well-Known Member
LOL I have been lucky so far and have never had to claim any bills have been just under the excess
Compenstation Culture - Horsey
- Thread starter Sarah_Jane
- Start date
Fahrenheit
Well-Known Member
This case was insane, I think if you are a 'horsy' person of a certain age ie: 16+, you know what you are doing when you get on a horse and by getting on a horse you accept the possibility that you are going to fall off.
It would be different if you have no experience of horses or are under a certain age and someone says here get on my horse they are perfectly safe (something I would never do this is just an example) and the horse bolts or rears and they come off and get injured then the owner could be deemed responsible, or she was asked to ride a horse she didn't know and the owners knew the horse had serious issues and didn't tell her before she rode therefore not giving her a choice of whether she wanted to ride a horse with that particular issue (if you know what I mean!)
But in this case - utter madness! The girl worked there, knew the horse and the horse never displayed this behaviour prior or after this incident! The judge ruled for the claimant even though there was no proof an he went on hearsay he didn't actually have a witness that was there!
This is why I Atki is appealing for witnesses over her mothers accident at the Cheshire Show, she wants someone who saw what happened so she can find out what happened and find out if what happened to her mother was purely an accident or not.
It would be different if you have no experience of horses or are under a certain age and someone says here get on my horse they are perfectly safe (something I would never do this is just an example) and the horse bolts or rears and they come off and get injured then the owner could be deemed responsible, or she was asked to ride a horse she didn't know and the owners knew the horse had serious issues and didn't tell her before she rode therefore not giving her a choice of whether she wanted to ride a horse with that particular issue (if you know what I mean!)
But in this case - utter madness! The girl worked there, knew the horse and the horse never displayed this behaviour prior or after this incident! The judge ruled for the claimant even though there was no proof an he went on hearsay he didn't actually have a witness that was there!
This is why I Atki is appealing for witnesses over her mothers accident at the Cheshire Show, she wants someone who saw what happened so she can find out what happened and find out if what happened to her mother was purely an accident or not.
D
Donkeymad
Guest
I think this case is utterly wrong. HOW were the Stokes's to blame?? Sadly, the blame culture has just gone way too far, and no doubt we will be getting sued for just nudging someone on a crowded bus any day.
This case bodes badly for riding schools etc, who already pay enormous insurance premiums.
It is about time that anybody who goes anywhere near a horse that they do not own, signs a disclaimer for any harm incurred to themselves.
The states already use such a system.
This case bodes badly for riding schools etc, who already pay enormous insurance premiums.
It is about time that anybody who goes anywhere near a horse that they do not own, signs a disclaimer for any harm incurred to themselves.
The states already use such a system.
Puppy
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
It is about time that anybody who goes anywhere near a horse that they do not own, signs a disclaimer for any harm incurred to themselves.
The states already use such a system.
[/ QUOTE ]
A disclaimer is not worth the paper that it's written on in this country - and quite rightly too IMO!
The US also has a far higher degree of tortious liability - so if you want to follow by their example then it will only get worse...
It is about time that anybody who goes anywhere near a horse that they do not own, signs a disclaimer for any harm incurred to themselves.
The states already use such a system.
[/ QUOTE ]
A disclaimer is not worth the paper that it's written on in this country - and quite rightly too IMO!
The US also has a far higher degree of tortious liability - so if you want to follow by their example then it will only get worse...
Foxford
Well-Known Member
I got the impression a disclaimer was fairly good thing. It shows the claimant was AWARE of risk at least! Obviously if there was negligence involved then they are worthless... And quite rightly!
dieseldog
Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter what we think, it is what the law thinks.
Centrestage - I would imagine that you could claim as the coursebuilder would have been negligent to leave a filler like that as it wouldn't have been unreasonable for someone to lean on it, knock it over and therefore scare a horse.
BTW that is an awful thing to have happened to you.
Centrestage - I would imagine that you could claim as the coursebuilder would have been negligent to leave a filler like that as it wouldn't have been unreasonable for someone to lean on it, knock it over and therefore scare a horse.
BTW that is an awful thing to have happened to you.
CentrestageSHS
Well-Known Member
yeh tell me about it, a silly accident or thoughtless moment by somebody has changed my life forever in the worse possible way, as horses are my life and I rely on my riding which unfortunately now isn't as good as it was. I have lost all the rides that I had, however I do think myself lucky that at least I can still walk and ride a bit, It could have been worse. I have to just look and they bright side of things and keep telling myself that evrything happens for a reason
CentrestageSHS
Well-Known Member
Oh BTW I am not going to claim as I am not like that, and it could have happened to anybody, I was just saying that I think everybody could claim for something nowdays if they wanted too.
P.S The filler didn't spook my horse, It was a long hanging filler stood on it's end and fell on my horse and knocked me off!! It hurt a lot! I am happy that my horse is still ok with fillers though or that would have been a nightmare for a showjumping horse to be petrified of hanging fillers!!!
P.S The filler didn't spook my horse, It was a long hanging filler stood on it's end and fell on my horse and knocked me off!! It hurt a lot! I am happy that my horse is still ok with fillers though or that would have been a nightmare for a showjumping horse to be petrified of hanging fillers!!!
MagicMelon
Well-Known Member
Ive had an accident with a horse which left me permanently scarred. However it never crossed my mind to sue anyone. I believe at the time we were going to claim on the owners insurance but the insurance wouldnt cover it (who on earth knows why) and since they were friends, we went no further. It was nobodys fault as such in my case. It was between me and the horse so I blame myself or the horse!
With horses, of course accidents happen. Its unavoidable as they are big strong animals with a mind of their own! I hate that these morons are so quick to sue. I only believe its right to if someone has actually been negligent - ie. say you're trying out a horse and the owner starts a chainsaw right beside you, the horse flips out and chucks you off badly - THEN sue! But the ones sueing for a pathetic broken arm which doesnt even effect their life for more than a few weeks and even then barely are just morons in my eyes.
I think everybody should be made to sign a disclaimer before getting on a horse, saying that they understand accidents happen with horses and they accept that. When I was selling a horse a few years ago, a young girl was trying him out but was getting carried away doing flying changes (she thought it was "cool") and just as I was about to tell her to quit it as I could see my horse getting bored, he did one buck and chucked her off. The horse in question had NEVER ever bucked! But had she got hurt then I bet they would have tried to sue me even though I dont believe I was negligible at all because as far as I was concerned the horse did not have ANY history of bucking!
If this horse had no history of rearing then I cannot see how they can sue. Horses do respond differently with different riders.
With horses, of course accidents happen. Its unavoidable as they are big strong animals with a mind of their own! I hate that these morons are so quick to sue. I only believe its right to if someone has actually been negligent - ie. say you're trying out a horse and the owner starts a chainsaw right beside you, the horse flips out and chucks you off badly - THEN sue! But the ones sueing for a pathetic broken arm which doesnt even effect their life for more than a few weeks and even then barely are just morons in my eyes.
I think everybody should be made to sign a disclaimer before getting on a horse, saying that they understand accidents happen with horses and they accept that. When I was selling a horse a few years ago, a young girl was trying him out but was getting carried away doing flying changes (she thought it was "cool") and just as I was about to tell her to quit it as I could see my horse getting bored, he did one buck and chucked her off. The horse in question had NEVER ever bucked! But had she got hurt then I bet they would have tried to sue me even though I dont believe I was negligible at all because as far as I was concerned the horse did not have ANY history of bucking!
If this horse had no history of rearing then I cannot see how they can sue. Horses do respond differently with different riders.
Puppy
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
With horses, of course accidents happen. Its unavoidable as they are big strong animals with a mind of their own!
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and generally the law recognises that
[ QUOTE ]
I hate that these morons are so quick to sue.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know what I hate?! I hate people who are so quick to bash the victims, real true victims, who've been greatly wronged and had their lives greatly effected/ruined as a direct result of another person not taking care like they ought to. Those poor, poor people who yes, then try to make a tortious claim (as there is no come back for them in the criminal court) and are perfectly aware that money is not going to give them back their former life, but hope it may make things more comfortable for them, and cruicially hold the person who has wronged them accountable, and yet to so many bitter members of society who are concerned about their insurance premiums THEY are the ones in the wrong - How moronic is that?!
Yes, what I really hate is people who are quick to judge when they don't know the full facts or even understand the legal reasoning.
[ QUOTE ]
I only believe its right to if someone has actually been negligent - ie. say you're trying out a horse and the owner starts a chainsaw right beside you, the horse flips out and chucks you off badly - THEN sue!
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't believe the amount of people in this thread commenting on the laws of negligence when I would bet they don't even know the legal definition of it...
[ QUOTE ]
But the ones sueing for a pathetic broken arm which doesnt even effect their life for more than a few weeks and even then barely are just morons in my eyes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Several weeks of discomfort and limitation on your life, and the liklihood of subsequent pain and limitation is hardly trivial.
And if it's a direct result of someone else not acting with due care then why shouldn't they be held accountable??
[ QUOTE ]
I think everybody should be made to sign a disclaimer before getting on a horse, saying that they understand accidents happen with horses and they accept that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Disclaimers mean nothing, and quite rightly so. A disclaimer would give riding schools and similar establishments a free pass to put people at great risk, life threatening even, and not be held accountable. I can only imagine the amount of accidents and deaths that may happen as a result.
[ QUOTE ]
When I was selling a horse a few years ago, a young girl was trying him out but was getting carried away doing flying changes (she thought it was "cool") and just as I was about to tell her to quit it as I could see my horse getting bored, he did one buck and chucked her off. The horse in question had NEVER ever bucked! But had she got hurt then I bet they would have tried to sue me even though I dont believe I was negligible at all because as far as I was concerned the horse did not have ANY history of bucking!
[/ QUOTE ]
Erm, you're right, you weren't. I really don't see the relevance of this story
except perhaps to illustrate that accidents happen with horses without negligence - but I think we all knew that already
[ QUOTE ]
If this horse had no history of rearing then I cannot see how they can sue. Horses do respond differently with different riders.
[/ QUOTE ]
And hence why it's highly likely not to withstand an appeal.
With horses, of course accidents happen. Its unavoidable as they are big strong animals with a mind of their own!
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and generally the law recognises that
[ QUOTE ]
I hate that these morons are so quick to sue.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know what I hate?! I hate people who are so quick to bash the victims, real true victims, who've been greatly wronged and had their lives greatly effected/ruined as a direct result of another person not taking care like they ought to. Those poor, poor people who yes, then try to make a tortious claim (as there is no come back for them in the criminal court) and are perfectly aware that money is not going to give them back their former life, but hope it may make things more comfortable for them, and cruicially hold the person who has wronged them accountable, and yet to so many bitter members of society who are concerned about their insurance premiums THEY are the ones in the wrong - How moronic is that?!
[ QUOTE ]
I only believe its right to if someone has actually been negligent - ie. say you're trying out a horse and the owner starts a chainsaw right beside you, the horse flips out and chucks you off badly - THEN sue!
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't believe the amount of people in this thread commenting on the laws of negligence when I would bet they don't even know the legal definition of it...
[ QUOTE ]
But the ones sueing for a pathetic broken arm which doesnt even effect their life for more than a few weeks and even then barely are just morons in my eyes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Several weeks of discomfort and limitation on your life, and the liklihood of subsequent pain and limitation is hardly trivial.
[ QUOTE ]
I think everybody should be made to sign a disclaimer before getting on a horse, saying that they understand accidents happen with horses and they accept that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Disclaimers mean nothing, and quite rightly so. A disclaimer would give riding schools and similar establishments a free pass to put people at great risk, life threatening even, and not be held accountable. I can only imagine the amount of accidents and deaths that may happen as a result.
[ QUOTE ]
When I was selling a horse a few years ago, a young girl was trying him out but was getting carried away doing flying changes (she thought it was "cool") and just as I was about to tell her to quit it as I could see my horse getting bored, he did one buck and chucked her off. The horse in question had NEVER ever bucked! But had she got hurt then I bet they would have tried to sue me even though I dont believe I was negligible at all because as far as I was concerned the horse did not have ANY history of bucking!
[/ QUOTE ]
Erm, you're right, you weren't. I really don't see the relevance of this story
[ QUOTE ]
If this horse had no history of rearing then I cannot see how they can sue. Horses do respond differently with different riders.
[/ QUOTE ]
And hence why it's highly likely not to withstand an appeal.
Onyxia
Well-Known Member
Although on the whole I agree with you Pups, its not premiums most of us worry about.
If this trend continues, RS will have no choice but to close, how can any business survive when they can be sued at the drop of a hat?
Then what happens?
Nearly everyone on here learned to ride and care for horses by spending days at the local RS.How will our children learn without them?
How many horses will be poorly treated by owners unable to learn any other way but buing their own?
Yes, of course if someone has caused the problem then they should pay up to the injured person, but for the most part its an accident.Something nobody could predict or take steps to prevent,we do still have those dont we?
If this trend continues, RS will have no choice but to close, how can any business survive when they can be sued at the drop of a hat?
Then what happens?
Nearly everyone on here learned to ride and care for horses by spending days at the local RS.How will our children learn without them?
How many horses will be poorly treated by owners unable to learn any other way but buing their own?
Yes, of course if someone has caused the problem then they should pay up to the injured person, but for the most part its an accident.Something nobody could predict or take steps to prevent,we do still have those dont we?
Orangehorse
Well-Known Member
Reading the report in H&H, this horse was perfectly well behaved, it wasn't regarded as a problem horse at all, and was going for a ride where it had been before, but still the owners were liable!
Because ANY horse might misbehave, shy, whip round for any reason (what if a bird flew out of the hedge and made the horse shy?) so no horse in the world can be regarded as a "safe" ride.
Because ANY horse might misbehave, shy, whip round for any reason (what if a bird flew out of the hedge and made the horse shy?) so no horse in the world can be regarded as a "safe" ride.
D
Donkeymad
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
I got the impression a disclaimer was fairly good thing. It shows the claimant was AWARE of risk at least! Obviously if there was negligence involved then they are worthless... And quite rightly!
[/ QUOTE ]
A disclaimer does not absolve anybody from negligence, and nor should it. But we all know horses, even those proclaimed 200% bombproof, can, and do, act out of character ocasionally. Should a rider get hurt riding one of these when nothing extraordinary occurs, there is no negligence on the owners part, why should they be open to being sued? People who ride and handle horses should accept this.
I got the impression a disclaimer was fairly good thing. It shows the claimant was AWARE of risk at least! Obviously if there was negligence involved then they are worthless... And quite rightly!
[/ QUOTE ]
A disclaimer does not absolve anybody from negligence, and nor should it. But we all know horses, even those proclaimed 200% bombproof, can, and do, act out of character ocasionally. Should a rider get hurt riding one of these when nothing extraordinary occurs, there is no negligence on the owners part, why should they be open to being sued? People who ride and handle horses should accept this.
Mr_Ed
Well-Known Member
Having read this briefly, the wording in the article "Matthew and Georgia Stokes, were liable for Aimee's injuries because they were aware of the possibility that horses, in general, can rear." sounds as if the Animals Act 1971 (S2(2)) may be the culprit again (aided by no win - no fee lawyers) - as in the now infamous Mirvahedy v. Henley case in 2003 (http://www.ridingsafely.net/mirvahedy_v_henley.html).
If this is the case, there is already considerable activity within the horse industry to get the Act amended.
If this is the case, there is already considerable activity within the horse industry to get the Act amended.
Blizzard
Well-Known Member
OMG Im shocked!
When I was 18 I was working at a point to pont yard and had my leg broken by another horse, while riding another, I didnt even think about sueing, horses are horses and unfortunately my leg was in the wrong place at the wrong time!
When I was 18 I was working at a point to pont yard and had my leg broken by another horse, while riding another, I didnt even think about sueing, horses are horses and unfortunately my leg was in the wrong place at the wrong time!