Could this be a landmark case??

[WoopsiiD]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ilt-20-ops-test-riding-horse-sues-owners.html

Should she sue?
Is she right to sue?
Was the court right to throw it out originally?
If this did go to court and she won what consequences could it have?

Discuss-but be nice!

 

[Montyforever]

I think at the end of the day you get on a horse at your own risk and that's why you can get rider insurance! Any horse could suddenly act like that, with no way of predicting it.

 

[Bikerchickone]

Ooh, that's a nasty one! Would usually say that if she was told the horse bucked and knew it was being given away because it was tricky to control then she assumes the risk in freely getting on its back.

If she wasn't warned properly then I guess that raises questions, but who could prove either side?

Awful thing to happen but do we need to become like litigation America when horses are unpredictable and nobody can know exactly what they'll do in any given situation?

I did pony rides on my horse and daughter's pony for her birthday for 3 years running, but I always made each parent sign a disclaimer and stay with their child, just in case!

 

[mountainview22]

Be nice?

I'm sorry I really don't think I'm able to.

Money grabbing bitch.

Horse was free.
Lady was "test riding" a free horse, I'd imagine she knew.

How in any way is the owner liable for what the animal does whilst another person is meant to be in control.

I'd let her drag me through every court.

Loss of earnings? I'm how'd you afford to take her to court? How come your pictured badly illustrating an "experienced" rider trying to jump. I am in no way experienced but I would not have let them print that picture if I were her.

Spiteful and disgusting.

 

[quirky]

I don't think she should sue.
Call me a cynic but alarm bells would have rung as soon as I knew the horse was being given away for nothing. Who gives away a 9 year old horse?

 

[Spring Feather]

If she was as experienced a rider as she claims then she'd know that there is a risk to getting on a horse. Being that experienced rider she'd surely assume that there was something "wrong" with the horse if it was being given away free. Who's to say this horse would have reared and bucked with another rider; who's to say she did something to upset the horse in such a way that it reacted like that. Yes I believe the original judge was right to throw out the case.

 

[YorksG]

While the injuries were nasty, they happened when she was already on the floor, not when she fell off. I'm not sure that this has been addressed. I know she wouldn't have been on the floor if she hadn't fallen off, but surely this is a risk any of us take whenever we get on ANY horse.

 

[rockysmum]

I think it depends on the circumstances.

This horse was being given away free, I would have been asking why. If the owner lied then I wouldn't blame her. She describes herself as an experienced rider, is she?, how is that measured, did she tell the owner she was.

If she was told that the horse was unpredictable and had misbehaved in the past, then if she got on it it should be her own risk.

I used to say our cob was bombproof, Marzipan on here will tell you I was wrong, she wasn't with her. So now I dont say it anymore, I tell people she is bombproof with us but has been badly behaved with someone else.

Every case would be different but if it made sellers describe horses accurately in the future, perhaps its not a bad thing if she wins. However making owners strictly liable for anything that happens when trying horses would probably put an end to the horse industry.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

Judging purely on the circumstances described in the article (and it is rather contradictory in places), my opinion is that the court was right to throw it out originally. Any horse, even the steadiest, most reliable horse can have a 'funny turn', particularly with an unfamiliar rider.
IMO this just emphasises that riders would be well-advised to have their own insurance. No, I don't think that she was right to sue, unless the vendor did something which could have been predicted to startle the horse, e.g. cracking a lunge whip behind it while she was riding. I'm not actually sure what she is hoping to achieve. I understand that she is in pain but how money would help her, I'm not sure.
There has been enough damage done to equestrian establishments already through the compensation culture and the decisions made in the courts, without taking things any further.
An experienced rider should be aware that horses are unpredictable.

 

[Puzzles]

It sounds like a freak accident and she's trying to find someone to blame very unfortunate for all involved.

 

[PeterNatt]

I would suspect the reason this went to court is that she had insurance cover in the event of her having and accident and being off work for a long period of time and that her insurers wish to mitegate their losses and are insisting that she sues the owner of the horse to recover some of the money they are having top pay out for her long term illness cover.

 

[jenki13]

Yes it must have been horrible for her BUT

Horses are unpredictable!

Horses can Buck & rear & occasionally people fall off in her case it happened to kick her in the face as well...

No she shouldn't sue & the judge was quite right in throwing it out of court the first time round.

Also if I was trying to prove I was experienced that photo would never ever see the national press!

If she wins then god help the equestrian industry... I think it could seriously harm riding schools, the Pony club, Events, livery yards - people will sue for anything...

 

[Mike007]

The normal(apart from driving)situation is that we must all insure against our own risks,Unfortunately due to a rather contested court decision, there are occasions when strict liability applies to the owner of a horse. For me ,the key point is that the horse was being given away. In other words,it had no value as a riding horse,in the eyes of its owner. The rider was aware of this and clearly accepted the risk. A sad situation for the injured party here,but I do feel that if you get on a "give away" horse, you must expect problems.And as for being an experienced rider, being experienced,is not quite the same as being capable. One can ride for 40 years and never sit on a real bad un .

 

[Puzzles]

If she wins then god help the equestrian industry... I think it could seriously harm riding schools, the Pony club, Events, livery yards - people will sue for anything...

That's very true - it's bad enough as it is
And even the most experienced riders have bad accidents - stuff happens and there's not always anything you can do about it.

 

[Marydoll]

Am i correct in thinking she was warned the horse had issues and could buck, and was being given away Due to this !?
Seriously, what did she think she was sitting on ??
The fact it was being given away would tell an experienced person these problems and bucks werent a flick of the back legs, and must be dangerous, pick a windae yer leaving numbers. She took a chance and very sadly paid the price, sorry i dont believe the owner is at fault here, and she may have over estimated her ability.
I hope she recovers well, and learns from it, its a true saying, you get nowt for nowt .

 

[Mike007]

Now there,s a question. We all know that there are a good many people who think they are experienced riders,but simply arnt. Did the owner give adequate consideration to this possibility?If I was going to let someone get on a problem ,giveaway horse,I would want to be absolutely sure they knew what they were doing first. Maybe for example see them ride a safer horse first.Having seen the photo of the poor woman riding,I doubt if she had a clue what she was letting herself in for. I do not think that this person is necessarily trying it on ,with this claim. I hope the court gives this sad case thefull consideration it deserves ,regardless of the outcome.

 

[zaminda]

The horse was being given away by a third party not the horses owner because the owner was to frightened to deal with the horse. At which point was she not aware the horse was an issue? Also, there is a picture of her riding her current mount, so yes she had major surgery but she is back riding (although I agree, if I was trying to say I was experienced, that photo would never have seen the light of day!), so she has no long term confidence issues etc. I wonder if this is a case of she thinks she rides better than she does, and underestimated how difficult the horse would be. We all know people who think they are better than they are, this just shows the current day situation, get it in writing that horses are dangerous and if your horse is quirky make them sign attesting to the fact that you have told them so.

 

[Abz88]

Mr Stead argued that she should have won the original case under the Animals Act, which makes keepers of animals 'strictly liable' if they are aware they have particular 'characteristics', not normally found in their species, which create a risk of serious injury

This alone is should have thrown the case out and kept it out of court! Characteristic of a horse - prey animal, flighty, un-trusting, highly spookable, highly reactive. All of which humans tame, or try to. These animal characteristics are still there in every horse on the planet. Just as 'pet lions' eat their life long keepers. So, the Animals Act should have won,....erm no. This women obviously knows nothing of horses.

Also, a horse being given away for free. This is because the owner can not sell it for one reason or other. Just like everything else, if it's free, keep that in mind at ALL times - whether it be a TV, bike, car or horse. It is free for a reason. Common sesne tells you this. This women comes across as greedy, wanting a perfect free horse and when it went wrong, get money from the owner.....nah. It's this culture which rockets up insurance and fear of people. Its pathetic. Horse riding is an extream sport. A lady died within 10miles MAX of me about 3 weeks ago. Compitent rider, riding her horse, horse spooked, slipped on some ice, lady dead. It is sad, but that is the risk you take when you ride. Especially when riding an un-known horse. I have owned my mare for a couple of months and still lunge her before riding to get her working and listening and still have someone hold the lunge for the first few minutes while riding. I have a bond with her, but I am very very aware she is a powerful creature and one that hasnt been ridden in 3 years and could easily cause huge damage to me. Respect is needed at all times.

Rant over! I hope this women does NOT win. It wont mean riders have no legal protection, if they are riding the horse they know....but riding to buy, may be a seperate weekly insurance is needed for this?

 

[Mike007]

Just as 'pet lions' eat their life long keepers. So, the Animals Act should have won,....erm no. This women obviously knows nothing of horses.

An interesting point. If I wandered into a zoo and claimed to be an experienced lion handler,do you think they would just give me the job and the keys to the lion enclosure. I suspect that they might just want to check that I knew what I was doing first. Did the owner or the owners agent take adequate steps with regard to duty of care. I think perhaps the claim should have been based on duty of care rather than the animals act.

 

[Syrah]

As I understand from reading it, the rider was not warned the horse could be 'tricky' or that it bucks. The judge in the original case determined that all horse could buck if spooked and that a rider assumes that responsibility of risk when they get on a horse.

This horse reared full height and then bucked violently and she got stamped on in the face.

I think she has a case if it was as extreme as being described and typical of the horses behaviour and she wasn't warned.

 

[Apercrumbie]

The prosecutor has labelled the horse "nasty and vicious"! Very, very few horses are nasty and vicious. As an "experienced rider" she knows the risks of getting on a horse and to be fair to the poor thing it possibly sounds pain related. If she wins this case it will be disastrous for riding schools and the equestrian community as a whole and she should be clever enough to realise the repercussions this will cause.

 

[Syrah]

I don't think it will be disasterous for riding schools and the like.

The case is making a distinction between the known risks of riding and the unknown by the rider. If an owner, dealer knows the horse is tricky in whatever way, they should warn any potential rider. If they don't, they pay the consequences.

It could be disasterous for any less than honest dealers or private sellers.

 

[Marydoll]

Hmm the woman is an adult, and having been warned about the horse chose to put herself at risk by getting on
IMO it sounds like shes over estimated her abilities, and paid the price.
The vendor having warned her of the horses issues as far as im concerned did his part, he accepted her as the experienced rider she described herself, its not up to him legally to assess her riding skills, although under the circumstances may have been the moral thing to do.
Personally i feel the fault or mistake sadly lies soley at her own door.

 

[Syrah]

The court was told that the horse’s previous owner was getting rid of him after a fall which caused her to 'lose her confidence'.

Her barrister said that Mr Patchcott knew this – and should have warned her Red, who was being given away for free, was tricky to control before she took the animal for a ride.

He didn't warn her.

 

[zaminda]

I have just re read the article, and it makes it very clear while the horse was being given away. Did the woman not ask? If so she really isn't very experienced! If she did, then it can be argued that she knew the horse was sharp by nature.
I would also question if the horse has since found a new home, and if so how it is behaving. It is very difficult for people selling/rehoming horses, they clearly need to get prospective customers to sign something saying that horses can be dangerous.
It sounds like the woman was unlucky, the majority of the damage was done by the horse trampling her. Was this intentional? Did anyone witness it?
I would suggest the article only gives one side of the story - hers and that there are very good reasons it was thrown out, which IMO it should have been!

 

[Ladydragon]

The court was told that the horse’s previous owner was getting rid of him after a fall which caused her to 'lose her confidence'.

Her barrister said that Mr Patchcott knew this – and should have warned her Red, who was being given away for free, was tricky to control before she took the animal for a ride.

He didn't warn her.

My take on it too... That he knew and didn't disclose a history to her...

"Benjamin Browne QC, defending former pharmaceutical company boss Mr Patchcott, said: 'Neither party contended that the horse had a known propensity to buck violently.
'Mrs Goldsmith consented to the risk that the horse could buck. It is obvious that on occasions when a horse bucks it will throw its rider."

The defending barrister appears to acknowledge no one declared the horse was known to buck and is trying to distract that point by saying all horses are capable of bucking... There is, IMO though, a discernible difference in knowing that bucks can occur unexpectedly and getting on one known to buck violently...

IF owner told seller who then didn't tell rider - seller at fault...

Key bit in bold... Does that refer to the owner and seller?

 

[dollymix]

I feel sorry for the lady having to go through so many operations BUT she knew the risks inherent in riding when she got on, plus the fact that she was trying this horse, knowing it was free... Well everyone on here, even without being explicitly told, would know that there was a risk with this animal.

Plus, can u imagine if she won? I would certainly be reluctant to let anyone ride a horse I was selling, even if they were a genuine buyer!

 

[Pedantic]

Horrible accident and I wish the lady well, but you get on a horse at your own risk, being "an experienced rider" she should have known better than most, particularly if the horse was being given away, sad sign of the times, have you had an accident.......

 

[Paris1]

Looking at the picture of the experienced rider, she doesn't appear in this picture to be very experienced or balanced. The article uses evocative words that simply don't apply to horses such as nasty and viscious, she was tOld the horse bucked and that was why they were gettin rid of it, sounds like she overestimated her own ability and balance to stay om a bucking horse. Experience tell us that sometimes we all no matter how well balanced fall off a bucking horse, it shows she is not that experienced.
As forthwith horse stamping on her face well another evocative word, I'm certain the horse did not deliberately tread on her face. As we say That's horses!

 

[Sheep]

A good friend of mine, a very good rider, frequently falls off her horse, even in walk (a combination of a very shiny saddle and his silly, squealing spooks!).

Anyway, my point is, it is possible that even with the most simple, straightforward fall, you could be very badly injured. Regardless of whether the horse bucked her off, had she fallen off due to lack of balance / standing off going over a fence and the horse had landed on her, would she then feel that she had the grounds to sue? It could happen to any of us, at any time, even on the 'safest' horse around.