Court of appeal claim for personal injury compensation whilst riding dismissed

[BlairandAzria]

As reported in H&H the court of appeal in tha case of Kara goldsmith vs. robert patchott (rider trying out 'free to good home' horse vs. keeper of the horse) has returned that the owner was NOT liable to pay KG compensation.

It seems that the crux of the matter came down to the fact that she knew that horses can buck and have the propensity to do so when scared. Her appeal was on the grounds that she knew the horse would spook, but was not aware that he would spook so visciously and repeatedly as to unseat a competant rider and cause injury. Judge found that if all horses have the facility to buck, there is no way of telling the level of the bucking reaction.

There are various other interesting point in the judgements, not least, the fact that KG was considered to be a 'competant' horsewoman. Had she been considered a novice i think it might have gone the other way.

Interesting on many grounds tbh....especially if like me you have someone else regularly ride your horse.

IMO its a victory for common sense, and one which doesnt absolve dealers and sellers from all liability but puts in place a sensible judgement rather than a rather alarming preCdent.

Still my deepest sympathies go to KG who has obviously suffered extreme injuries,and has had to have several sever facial reconstructions...a sober reminder to us all on the risk we take riding everyday.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

I agree with the judgement as did another judge in a similar case . http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/309231.html

Seeing as Ms KG took went to the appeal court after it was initially thrown out, who is liable for all the costs ?

 

[xxMozlarxx]

Probably the taxpayer

 

[Kat]

Probably the taxpayer

Highly unlikely in a personal injury case, it is probably insurance funded.

 

[BlairandAzria]

Most likely she persued the claim under a no-win-no-fee type arrangement.

 

[Kat]

Most likely she persued the claim under a no-win-no-fee type arrangement.

Which would also most likely be insurance backed

 

[MerrySherryRider]

I wonder if an insurance company or a no win no fee legal firm would have taken it to the appeal court once it had been thrown out, particularly as there doesn't seem to have been a similar case where the rider won compensation.
If there isn't a good chance of a quick win, I suspect they would have cut their losses at the first attempt.

 

[Goldenstar]

A victory for common sense .

 

[Ibblebibble]

A victory for common sense .

ditto

 

[BlairandAzria]

I wonder if an insurance company or a no win no fee legal firm would have taken it to the appeal court once it had been thrown out, particularly as there doesn't seem to have been a similar case where the rider won compensation.
If there isn't a good chance of a quick win, I suspect they would have cut their losses at the first attempt.

From the judgement:

"In Flack v Hudson [2001] QB 698 the claimant’s wife was riding a horse which had a propensity to be frightened by agricultural machinery. The defendant, who was owner and keeper of the horse, knew of this characteristic but the claimant’s wife did not. The horse bolted when a tractor approached and the claimant’s wife was thrown to the ground, suffering fatal injuries. The claimant’s claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 succeeded. Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal rejected the defence under section 5 (2) of the Act. This was because the deceased had not been alerted to the horse’s aversion to agricultural machinery. She was not aware of and therefore had not voluntarily accepted this specific risk."

I presume KG brought the claim on the count that she accepted the general risk, however, the horse she was riding had a specific 'dangerous/ viscious' buck (outside the parameters of a 'normal' buck) so therefore she did not accept that specific risk?!

Under that provisio too it is my understanding (possibly wrongly) that a dodgy dealer who mis-describes a horse who is known to be a rearer/ nervous in traffic as 'bombproof' to (for example) a novice person who specifically asked for a safe bombproof horse would be liable, however a dealer selling a competition horse 'with quirks' would not be liable if the horse bucked person trying it , if the person trying the horse out was considered comepetant and able be assess the risk a 'quirky' horse might pose(which if competing regularly would be the case).

In anycase, seems to me to be a very sensible decision by the judge.

 

[moana]

Good result.

 

[Booboos]

Going from the earlier reporting on this case I think the claimant had been told that the owner wanted to sell the horse because it had bucked her off and this was the reason it was free. That to me means that she knew and accepted the risk, so right decision all around.

Flack v Hudson sounds like a different type of case as the horse had a particular dangerous problem the rider had not been warned about. That sounds like the right decision as well to me.

 

[Echo Bravo]

Let's face it everytime you get on a horse,you are going into the unknown as they are living,breathing,THINKING animals and what you see and hear could be lot different fromt what they see and hear, you take your life into your own hands everytime you step out of your front door or get on a horse

 

[Kamakazegirl]

As sorry as i feel for KG after suffereing such injuries, I definitely think this is the right result. it seems like it was an issue of Informed consent: the fact that the horse was being offered for free, and that KG knew that the horse did buck meant that she had consented to such a risk. Not only that, surely anyone, particularly someone experienced, who gets on any horse is accepting that riding can be dangerous and a multitude of things can happen! For me, that the horse was free should have set alarm bells off straight away...