Could this be a landmark case??

[PooJay]

So the woman knew that the last owner was too scared to get on it, it was free and was she told it could and did buck.

I don't think it was the owner that was stupid in this case, i can't believe it's got to court stupid woman

 

[lar]

I think the big issue here is - did the seller know the horse had a tendency to buck/rear full height? And if so did they inform the buyer? IF the buyer wasn't fully informed of this particular horse's quirks then I don't see how she could have made an informed decision to accept the risks and therefore volenti does not apply.

Incidentally - I don't think you can really argue that just because the horse was being given away she should necessarily know there was something wrong with it. A horse on our yard has just been given away - there is nothing much wrong with it other than an injury which means it can no longer event and the owner wanted rid quick so as not to have to keep paying full livery bills.

 

[Kat]

Caveat emptor!!

Surely not so much caveat emptor, more volenti non fit injuria, if we're talking latin/legal jargon

 

[Kat]

I think the big issue here is - did the seller know the horse had a tendency to buck/rear full height? And if so did they inform the buyer? IF the buyer wasn't fully informed of this particular horse's quirks then I don't see how she could have made an informed decision to accept the risks and therefore volenti does not apply.

I think the real issue is in fact whether what the horse did goes beyond "a normal characteristic of its species". The case failed because horses generally can and do from time to time buck, the same as they can spook, bolt, rear shy etc. The claimant is arguing that this horse didn't just have a normal propensity to buck, it had a tendancy to buck in a way that was abnormal and unusual and therefore she hadn't willingly taken on the risk of riding it.

For the record I think any horse can, if the circumstances are right, put in a buck or series of bucks nasty enough to unseat an averagely experienced rider. On that basis, unless there are witnesses that can say this buck was somehow unusually severe, I do think the judge at first instance was correct to find against the claimant.

 

[Alphamare]

Kat that works too!

My feelings about this whole thing though seemed so nicely summed up by those two words.

This culture of suing is pathetic and every horse bucks and every rider will fall off at some point. Therefore neither the horse nor she did anything unusual. They were right to throw out the case and I hope they do so again!

 

[ponypilotmum]

there's a world of difference betwwen "sometimes throws a small buck" and "bucks violently". was the buyer told which of the two it was? i would argue that a small buck/ shy/ rear is part of a horse's natural character. violent bucking is not. I would expect to be told if a horse I was trying bucked violently.

Those arguing that the injuries were sustained after the fall / on the ground... tat is where injuries after a fall tend to take place. You don't crack your head mid air. It is not always possible to roll after a fall. If the horse hadnt bucked her off she wouldn't have been in the way of the animal's hoof.

Why do people pass on animals that have a tendency to be dangerous?

The only people this would affect is unscrupulous sellers and dealers. Having been told by a dealer that a pony was 'suitable for a toddler' and had my reasonably experinced child bucked off and hurt, I hope that (if the seller hadn't warned that the horse bucked violently) this is a landmark case and means that previous displays of such behaviour must be disclosed by dealers and sellers.

 

[JFTDWS]

there's a world of difference betwwen "sometimes throws a small buck" and "bucks violently". was the buyer told which of the two it was? i would argue that a small buck/ shy/ rear is part of a horse's natural character. violent bucking is not. I would expect to be told if a horse I was trying bucked violently.

...

Why do people pass on animals that have a tendency to be dangerous?

Small bucking and violent bucking is very subjective though - a bunny hop into canter on a young horse is far removed from a bronching beast or a twisting fly buck - where do you draw the line about what to expect on a horse? I know my healthy young highlands perform all those manoevres in the field - alongside vertical rears, twisting handbrake turns and everything else- as do most of the horses I've known. Unless I'm very much mistaken, that puts them very much as part of the "natural character" of the horse.

Why do people pass animals who that sort of thing under saddle on? because they accept that they cannot cope and cannot fix the problem. Some horses may be better pts, sure, but others just lack manners, are picked up by (truly) experienced owners and turned into decent horses. It's not like they were selling it on without warning - that £0 price tag is a big warning sign on a fit, healthy animal.

 

[EquestriVan]

it says she was aware that the horse could buck violently, so in my option she knew the risk so no shouldnt sue, its disgusting that this is even got to the court stage

 

[Hackie]

it says she was aware that the horse could buck violently, so in my option she knew the risk so no shouldnt sue, its disgusting that this is even got to the court stage

Agreed. I do to say that however that there are plenty of people out there who overestimate their abilities in riding difficult horses, and having been told it could really buck, she may have been of the opinion that she would be competent and able to handle it. The only person that could have made that call was her, and whilst its a shame she was hurt, thats an assessment every rider makes every time they get on their own, or someone else's horse.

 

[jendie]

In this case I suspect the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' would have suspected the horse was problem as it was being given away!! Very few people would give away a saintly nine-year-old and common sense should have told her there could be a big problem.

But what about the cases where the horse is described as 'bombproof' and suitable for a total novice and then bucks and spooks for England !!

 

[Paris1]

If there were no witnesses my first instinct would be that the woman had her face caved in, how can she accurately remember how the horse behaved prior to falling off?

That's a beside the point Let's hope good sense prevails and it gets kicked out of court. Incidentily, does being a bus member provide personal injury in this case?

 

[Ibblebibble]

lots of very good points and perhaps the seller should hire some of you to argue his side in court!!!
FWIW i think the first judge made the right decision, hopefully the appeal court will be of the same opinion and not let this case get any further.

 

[Miss L Toe]

Why on earth get on a horse without the owner tacking up and riding first? (I mean there are odd exceptions but still?)

I never mount a horse by putting a foot in stirrup it is so dangerous but is a BHS approved system ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,about as much use as their "approved status"

 

[soulfull]

In this case NO she shouldn't win

However I do think something should be done in some cases

ie where the seller knows the horse is not safe/reliable/ or that it is unpredictable and still tries to sell it for a nervous novice. We all know it happens and I too many years ago got hurt when looking for the above. Both times I later found out the seller had lied NOT ON in my books

So basically if someone could prove without doubt that owner knew horse was dangerous or not suitable for nervous novice

Problem is I doubt it could be done, cos then you get into the realms of novice but confident rider etc etc

 

[Holly Hocks]

I think there are too many unknown facts here and people are making too many assumptions. The article states that the owner was giving said horse away because she had lost her confidence after a fall. That has to be some confidence knocking fall to make someone suddenly give a horse away which means that yes, the horse may have reared and bucked violently in the past. IF this is the case, then surely the horse should have been given away as no more than a companion. Did the owner encourage the viewer to get on the horse, or did they discourage it? How much did they tell the viewer?
There are two sides to every story and reading a newspaper article - (particularly one by the Daily Fail who are notoriously one-sided) is no way to form an opinion. There are two people who know the truth of what happened - the owner and the viewer.