Could this be a landmark case??

Puzzles said:
It sounds like a freak accident and she's trying to find someone to blame :( very unfortunate for all involved.
Click to expand...
Unfortunate accident, but not a freak accident as horse was obviously a project type, so she took a risk and lost out, no comparison with a beginner being put in a dangerous position, which could have led to conviction.
I am insured third party to cover myself against this type of thing.
I don't blame the woman to some extent but only if the girl is insured, the courts will throw it out due to her experience and the fasc it was being given away.
 
Well it seems pretty simple to me... Owners are liable if their animals 'have particular 'characteristics', not normally found in their species, which create a risk of serious injury'. The horse bucked, which any horse is capable of doing. Anyone that doesn't understand that, and that all horses are potentially dangerous, shouldn't be near a horse. Simples.

It seems like the worst of her injuries came from being trodden on after the fall, anyway, which is really bad luck and not necessarily reflective of the horses' behaviour.

ETA - in Aus, where I am from, you tend to only need personal accident, death and disability insurance when competing (although you are covered by your policy all the time), and its always struck me as odd that it doesn't seem as common here in the UK (someone correct me if I'm wrong, please!) as to be honest the most likely risk you have when you get on a horse is to yourself!
 
Last edited:
Silly woman. It doesn't sound like she was lied to, she just didn't ask the right questions.

My friend broke her back when she was lied to by potential sellers. They said the horse was perfect and never put a foot wrong.
My friend tacked it up - fine, lead it to the mounting block - fine, put her foot in the stirrup - the horse spun around and around, she finally lost her grip and fell, that's when the horse caught her in the back. She was in hospital for a while, miles away from home and so close to Christmas. She was very lucky and is back riding now. She still gets almost constant pain though.
When the horse was re-checked, they realised that it had an incredibly painful back and shouldn't have even had a saddle on!
My friend didn't sue, even though I think she would have had more of a case than that woman, because the owners DID lie to her and put her life at risk. However, she knows accidents happen and the poor horse was in pain.
 
'experience' is always relative though isn't it. This is a little devils advocate but we really don't have the whole story.

If the original owner was very novice it a) might not have taken much bad behaviour (a small buck/spook/jink) for them to fall off b) they might be more inclined to lose confidence from such a fall (that a more experienced rider might find easier to shrug off ) and become 'scared' off the horse so that a friend has to sell/rehome it for them.

If this was the case anyone with a bit more experience might think they can manage the horse. I know having read through the lines of a few adverts when looking for a horse that a few struck that it might be more a case of a novice owner not knowing how to handle the issue than a truely badly behaved horse.

I think it depends very much exactly what this horse had done in the past (presumably if he had such a previous reputation for standing upright witnessed by a third party the judge would not have thrown it out.) and what the lady was told if the former was the case and hence whether she accepted the associated risks.

Presumably noone else witnessed the incident? and hence her reporting of the behaviour is all the proof there is that that is what actually happened. What if the horse leaped sideways and she fell off not as she remembers/reported.

I think it raises an interesting point about who is ultimately responsible when horses are being trialled for sale.
 
If she wins, we could all become millionaires. Just go view a project horse and fall off.
(Goes off to scroll down the pages on Horsemart to start new career in compensation claims.:rolleyes:)
 
Annielusian said:
Silly woman. It doesn't sound like she was lied to, she just didn't ask the right questions.

My friend broke her back when she was lied to by potential sellers. They said the horse was perfect and never put a foot wrong.
My friend tacked it up - fine, lead it to the mounting block - fine, put her foot in the stirrup - the horse spun around and around, she finally lost her grip and fell, that's when the horse caught her in the back. She was in hospital for a while, miles away from home and so close to Christmas. She was very lucky and is back riding now. She still gets almost constant pain though.
When the horse was re-checked, they realised that it had an incredibly painful back and shouldn't have even had a saddle on!
My friend didn't sue, even though I think she would have had more of a case than that woman, because the owners DID lie to her and put her life at risk. However, she knows accidents happen and the poor horse was in pain.
Click to expand...

Why on earth get on a horse without the owner tacking up and riding first? (I mean there are odd exceptions but still?)
 
I'd say I was a fairly experienced rider but I know I can sometimes sit the biggest buck and sometimes fall off at a tiny spook - just depends how it catches you. I agree that it sounds like the damage was done when she was already on the floor and that was bad luck but, really, we all know the risk of being around horses and that even the most placid can hurt you.
A friend was recently bringing an old horse in from the field and he spooked into her because some hay blew across the yard, splitting her lip badly and breaking her ribs. It wasn't a massive spook at all but he managed to knock her flying. Should she have sued his owners?
As with other posters, the implications of the case worry me a great deal.
 
With my legal hat on, I think it is a good thing this is being going to appeal, I hope that the judges take the opportunity to clarify the law as the animals act is an absolute dogs dinner of a statute, particularly post Mirvahedy.

Morally, I think it depends what she was told, but alarm bells should ring if a horse is being given away free. From the photo she doesn't look experienced enough to be taking on a problem horse.

I'd be interested to know whether there were independant witnesses who can verify that the horse did as alleged, it all sounds a bit sensationalist to me....
 
"The pair had trotted and cantered for approximately 20 minutes without any problem."

This suggests the horse was ridable.
The damage appears to have been done once she was on the ground - a hoof in the face will do just that but one of the first things I was taught way back before the litigious culture of today was roll away after a fall. In fact a pony club game was made of it.

BTW has anyone else seen the "Have you had an accident with/on a horse" adverts that are cropping up?
 
Also was the horse ridden by someone else before she got on it? I know i would never go to view a horse and definitely wouldn't sit on one that i couldn't see ridden by someone else.

The fact that it was being given away would ring huge alarm bells for me.

Have to agree about that picture, it hardly instills confidence in the riders ability.
 
“The distinction Mrs Goldsmith seeks to draw is between general knowledge that a horse may buck and throw its rider, and knowledge that a horse may buck so violently that even an experienced rider cannot stay in the saddle.

“It is suggested that she consented to the former but not the latter."

So is she trying to say that experienced riders never fall off? I've seen several people who are really experienced fall off because of a "violent" buck.

I understand that yes it was a horrible situation, but horses (and any animals) are unpredictable and she should have known that before she got on, especially if she is as experienced as she claims to be.
 
No she should not sue, people are encouraged to do so these days. (experienced rider) is such a loose term, my 66 year old mother is experienced having ridden many different horses over twenty years and goes x country. But they have all been well behaved and predictable. Having the ability to ride and stick on anything is reserved for a few brave souls who do it day in day out. know your limitations :mad:
 
Looking at the picture I would say the term 'experianced' is being used loosely. She is clearly out of balance over a tiny cross pole, so her ability to sit even a tiny rear and buck is questionable.
Do any of us ever get on a strange horse without being prepared for anything it might do, regardless of what we are told?
Sorry accidents happen, that's what insurance is for!
 
No she shouldn't be suing. While I feel very sorry for her, I would expect anyone who has spent time around horses, and especially those who consider themselves 'experienced', to know that horses are characteristically big, strong, unpredictable animals (isn't that part of the fun :)). It is a high risk activity, why else would there be insurance around to cover ourselves and those around us. People get injured and even killed by horses, their own horses that they know and spend time with day in day out, wrong place at the wrong time and it is all capable of going pear shaped.

I am sure she is thoroughly p'd off by her accident, although by the looks of things she is back riding again, and she has my sympathy but I hope common sense prevails and her appeal is rejected.
 
I don't suppose her pursuing the case has anything at all to do with the fact that Mr Patchcott is a former pharmaceutical company boss and she thinks he's might have some cash to spare? :-/

I've had a few project horses over the years, and I'd never attempt to ride them as a trial when I look at them, why on earth would you get on something that clearly has issues? No-one gives away a perfect horse, free = problems, I imagine it was tried in its own tack which may be badly fitting, its may have pre-existing physical issues that need addressing and probably a few physiological ones to go with it so why in gods name would you get on it!
Only after thorough body checks and lots of handling and groundwork would I ever attempt to get on a 'project' horse no matter how big or small its problem.

You wouldn't buy a car that was a 'doer upper' and attempt to drive it home!
 
Bigginge said:
No she shouldn't be suing. While I feel very sorry for her, I would expect anyone who has spent time around horses, and especially those who consider themselves 'experienced', to know that horses are characteristically big, strong, unpredictable animals (isn't that part of the fun :)). It is a high risk activity, why else would there be insurance around to cover ourselves and those around us. People get injured and even killed by horses, their own horses that they know and spend time with day in day out, wrong place at the wrong time and it is all capable of going pear shaped.

I am sure she is thoroughly p'd off by her accident, although by the looks of things she is back riding again, and she has my sympathy but I hope common sense prevails and her appeal is rejected.
Click to expand...

^^^this!!^^^

IMO its a complete joke!! Being next to a horse is a risk in itself, any "experienced" person would know that! Particularly a 9yo going free!! Even if the owner didn't warn of the previous bucking, you'd expect something and be a bit prepared as an "experienced" rider given the circumstances!
 
bikerchickone said:
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?
Click to expand...

I agree completely.
 
HarlequinSer said:
“The distinction Mrs Goldsmith seeks to draw is between general knowledge that a horse may buck and throw its rider, and knowledge that a horse may buck so violently that even an experienced rider cannot stay in the saddle.

“It is suggested that she consented to the former but not the latter."

So is she trying to say that experienced riders never fall off? I've seen several people who are really experienced fall off because of a "violent" buck.

I understand that yes it was a horrible situation, but horses (and any animals) are unpredictable and she should have known that before she got on, especially if she is as experienced as she claims to be.
Click to expand...


The distinction between the bucking/ violent bucking is the relevant part that this case seems to be relying on, the case should fail on this alone as in my view that experience, whether this rider is experienced is not really relevant, will give you the knowledge that ANY horse CAN buck violently enough that ANY rider CAN fall off.
 
One also questions why she is the guy who is trying to get rid of his friends horse, and not the owner. He isn't a dealer clearly, as the horse is a freebie, so why him? I would suspect it is because he has cash, and she sees him as a more viable target. If I ever let anyone ride one of my horses (seriously unlikely) I think I will check if I am covered by my 3rd party insurance if they have an accident and sue!
If she wins, its going to cause problems for people trying to sell horses. Everyones view of 'experienced' varies, so its going to mean people asking prospective customers 20,000 questions, and possibly putting them off
 
Mike007 said:
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:eek:. 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.
Click to expand...

An employer rightly has a duty of care to assess the employee's abilities before exposing them to risk, but I am not sure the same applies to someone selling a horse. Otherwise all sellers would need to send potential buyers to an RS for an assessment lesson by a competent professional before they let them anywhere near their horse.

This is the most disturbing aspect of this case, i.e. that this woman is suggesting the onus is on the seller to distinguish between behaviour that affects the 'average' rider and behaviour that affects the 'experienced' rider, as well as being able to correctly identify buyers as average or experienced. The first judge was completely right to throw it out of court, hope the second one does the same and it would be good to see a more decent article reporting on the case than the drivel in the DM.
 
Batgirl said:
Why on earth get on a horse without the owner tacking up and riding first? (I mean there are odd exceptions but still?)
Click to expand...

:( I've done this.. was at a dealers & the dealer was the only one around & too heavy to ride the pony.
I got on it (after being told it was fine) walked & trotted round (fine) so asked for canter & got Bucked all the way along the short & long side of the arena (40x60) & then the pony went right up on it's hind legs - scary as hell & My lesson was definitely learnt!! - I should of known better originally as we had witnessed/ridden a few less than perfect horses before.

Also what can you count as "violently bucked" - I have sat some broncing in my time and then fallen off at the smallest sideways leap / fly buck :o

It never says that the previous owner got bucked off either just that she fell & for an already nervous rider just having a fall can shatter their confidence.
 
I madly rode one once, when the lady - lovely, but admittedly huge said she didn't want to ride the lithe TB I was trying. The horse was totally fine and the lady was telling the truth.

However I'd not do that now, I'd expect someone to ride it first, if not the owner - then someone else.
 
If an 'experienced' adult makes a decision to ride a possible problem horse, then the risk should lie with them. I've had a couple of free horses and I fully agree with maggiesmum that I wouldn't get on them without getting them checked over thoroughly, in order to hopefully find the problem!

How is an owner supposed to stop their horse behaving like a horse? I was selling a pony, nice friendly little chap, not a bad bone in his body. A family came to try him, I shouldn't have let them on him after he took one look and went to the back of his box, but I did. He reared straight up as soon as the son got on him; he'd never done that before and as far as I know he never did it again. How could I have possibly known he was going to do that, other than he was capable of rearing, just like any horse. Guess I would have been liable.

I went to try a supposedly novice ride for someone, the saddle slipped and the pony bolted. It was my decision to ride a strange horse knowing they could be unpredictable, I wouldn't have expected a horse suitable for a novice to bolt like that, but I'm old enough and wise enough to realise that people don't always tell you the whole story. Would I have sued if I'd been injured? No, it was my decision.
 
Surely it depends what she asked/ what she was told about the horse? If she knew that the horse could be difficult (although this seems to be in dispute) then she knew the risks, but if she was told the horse was well behaved, then the fault lies with the seller. I would never get on a horse if I knew it was prone to bucking fits or had serious behavioral issues, but I would definitely get on one that I was told was well-behaved, and would probably get on what that just had a reputation for being a bit tricky. So I suppose it depends what was said and whether she was misled at all. The issue would be more complicated if a) she hadn't asked about the horse's behaviour and b) if the seller hadn't said whether he was well behaved or badly behaved. Then, although I think the seller should have warned her, I think the fault would probably lie with the woman for not finding out what sort of horse she was about to get on.
Also, I couldn't see anything in the article to suggest the horse was being given away?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top