Dealer - personal injury claim?

N

newboult51

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 November 2007
Messages
239
Visit site
Hi I am new to this site, and wondered if anyone out there has any opinion/knowledge of whether I have any right to gain compensation from a horse dealer? Sorry this post is a long one!

About 8 months ago I told my livery yard owner that I wanted to purchase a young horse as a project to bring on, perhaps for my 13 year old daughter to move onto in a year or two. She took me see her friend, who is a well known local dealer. The dealer's yard manager saw me ride a number of horses at the yard and so was aware of my standard of riding. I saw her ride a 5 year old Irish sports horse which I liked very much, but I didn't ride it at that point. A few days later I returned to the yard to try out the horse myself. Again, the yard manager rode it. It seemed a little uneasy but nothing worse at that point. I then mounted it, walked round the menage, then it went totally out of control, bucking and rearing and wheeling round. It finally scraped me off against the fence at high speed, and I fell off. The result was a shattered lumber vertebrae, a week in hospital, 3 months in a back brace, and now continuing pain and stiffness which means I can't ride, and find sitting for long periods very painful.
My question is - do I have any right to compensation at all? My life has changed entirely due to the accident, and obviously I wouldn't have got on the horse if I had known it was dangerous. On the other hand, did I take the risk entirely into my own hands?
Would appreciate your views
Thanks
smile.gif
 
Firstly sorry about your accident, that is awful for anyone to have to live with.

However, that said, you state you wanted a horse as a project to bring on. To me a project is either an unschooled horse or a horse with issues. A 5 year old that you saw ridden before with no incident and then again a second time with no issues until you got on, might suggest that your ability was not able to cope with said horse (sorry if that is rude). It is not a dealers job to assess the riding level of a client (although most will say a firm no if they think there is a safety issue). It is as much your job to be honest about your ability and level of experience, any dealer that has a client looking for a project will assume you are of a certain standard and level to cope with issues.

I look at it as you are a youngster just passed your driving test in a 1 litre car, you buy a 3 litre performance car and within a month have a serious accident, due to your lack of ability to drive, would you sue the car dealer that sold it to you. Horses are horses, every rider is different and react differently to how you ride, maybe unwittingly you did something that upset a baby and he responded as a baby.

Dealers are there to sell horses, and if you want a "project" horse, you are prepared to take on a horse with problems or unschooled, because they showed you one (which i suspect was a lot cheaper than a produced 100% safe horse), you have to bear some of the blame.

However, all that said I am sure some solicitor will take on your case and ruin another business when the horse industry is suffering enough through insurance claims.

The old saying springs to mind "horses are horses with a mind of their own, if you want a machine buy a car".

I do hope you start to feel better soon.
 
Sorry, but I totally agree with what mags Mum says. Horses are not machines, anyhorse can react in a totally unexpected manner at any time. This is why we have rider insurance.
 
I dont think any honest solictor would take the case on, you said yourself that you seen the horse being rode both times you were there, also you mentioned that it seemed uneasy.

Sorry to me thats just like saying oh i thought the bridge was unsteady, then going to walk on it and it collapsing!.

To me someone asking for a project horse is an experienced rider, im not saying that you arent.

Im a firm believer that no horse is 100%, even my plods can have their off days. Even my 27 year old can test me!!!
 
echo the above - you asked for a project horse
and insurance would see that as a loop hole to as you asked to be shown a project horse

but theres always a but--
shes a business-- ask the right people go www.equine lawyers.co.uk someone bowned to help you
pau a fee of 25quid for half hour and ask
 
will add you might lose your yard owner as a mate and also your livery as the local dealer is her freind so dont say to much to either of your intentions and look elsewhere to keep neddy

one thing to remember if they were true freinds and true horseman
they would never have put you in that position of being over horsed

but-- you liked it --- didnt ride the 1st time but wnet back and rode it becuase you liked it

regardless of being overhorsed or lack of expreinced with youngsters- thats what they do plungy wungyies--


but you got on that horse with intentions for a project for your daughter

mate - i dont want to sound hard nor harsh shes 13yrs old you have a responsiblity as a parent to keep her safe till shes adult
at 13 a-- shes not learnt all of life has to offer
b- horses and being in horses doesnt happen with in the next horse up as a project type thing far to dangerous for a 13yrs old
horse is an education that constant i our learnings on going and never ending


if you wnted the next horse up for a 13yrs you do it for abilities
and not for either cheap horse or as a status symbol as horse is bigger and nice looking or for you - ie i liked the horse--
you arnt her-
you buy or get a next horse up when shes ready to move up
in her own time-- you nuture and encoruage then you get dividends--

aam saying becuase these if going to court are the type of questions and facts put to you
 
What a dreadful thing to have happened. However, you did specifically state that you were looking for a "project" to bring on. Straightaway, this would indicate that you are a good enough rider to be able to deal with unschooled horses. What happened was just one of those horrible freak accidents. However, in this litigious world, someone is bound to take your case on (think of all those "no win, no fee" solicitors adverts on the TV) and this particular dealer will probably go out of business.
Accidents with horses are commonplace. I was leading one of mine in from the field when it pulled back for no apparent reason - the result was I had to have my leg re-aligned, had one year of intensive physio, and still walk with a limp and can't do quite a lot of the things I used to. After the accident, I was just so relieved that I never have friends or other people helping with our horses as if it had happened to someone else - would I have been sued?
I hope your injuries improve.
 
1)[ QUOTE ]
The dealer's yard manager saw me ride a number of horses at the yard and so was aware of my standard of riding.

[/ QUOTE ]

2) [ QUOTE ]
I saw her ride a 5 year old Irish sports horse which I liked very much, but I didn't ride it at that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

3) [ QUOTE ]
A few days later I returned to the yard to try out the horse myself. Again, the yard manager rode it. It seemed a little uneasy but nothing worse at that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it seems that the dealer took reasonable care to assess your riding and demonstrate the horse to you before hand, so that you knew what you were mounting.

I don't see how they were negligent. Unless there is some other reason/factor, how are you suggesting that they were negligent?
confused.gif


[ QUOTE ]
I then mounted it,

[/ QUOTE ]

Volenti non fit injuria!!

[ QUOTE ]
My question is - do I have any right to compensation at all? My life has changed entirely due to the accident, and obviously I wouldn't have got on the horse if I had known it was dangerous. On the other hand, did I take the risk entirely into my own hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry about your accident, but my opinion, based on the information given above, is that you would struggle to show negligence, and that you saw the horse be a little iffy and knew it was a "project" yet mounted it all the same - therefore willingly took the risk. I don't think you have a decent case.
 
Welcome to the forum
smile.gif


Yes, you do have a case. Case president was set on this issue only this year in a case which was very flimsy compared to yours. The dealer should have insurance and, despite what some people say about the negatives of a compensation culture, where serious injury takes place and life in changed, compensation is due to assist the victim. There does not have to be negligence to have a case.

Get yourself off to see a Solicitor.

I will now go off and run for cover .......
 
You may have meant this, but just to be clear, under the common law of tort under which personal injury claims fall, you do need to prove negligence (or in some cases breach of a statutory duty -that is, a legal duty) to make a claim. You then have to go on to prove causation - that the negligence (or breach) caused an otherwise avoidable injury.

However, if you make a claim under the Animals Act 1971 (and you can plead both the Act and negligence as alternatives in some cases) then negligence does not have to be proved as the Act imposes a legal concept called "strict liability". This means it is enough for the act to be done, as long as it is done is accordance with the requirements of the Act. The example I usually use is the offence of going through a red traffic light, which is a strict liability criminal offence. You may not have meant to do it; you may not have realised you did it, but if you did, then just the fact you have done it makes it an offence.

What you do have to prove for Animals Act cases is that injury resulted from the animal acting in a certain way likely to cause serious injury due to a characteristic of whatever animal it is. The wording of the Act is more difficult than just saying that, but is too complicated and boring to go into here. However, if you can prove that the animal was acting in a way prescribed by the Act (usually with the assistance of expert evidence) and you were injured as a result, then strict liability comes into play.

The leading case is Mirvahedy-v-Henley, in which judgment was given by the House of Lords in 2003. It concerns horses which escaped onto a road causing a collision in which Mr Mirvahedy was seriously injured. No-one ever found out how the horses escaped; it was accepted that Dr and Mrs Henley had not been legally negligent, but they were liable under the Animals Act. The characteristic of the individual animal or of the species has be known to the owner/keeper.

The case here would not be without it's difficulties - there is always a point when you have to get on a horse for the first time to see if it's for you- and if it chooses that moment to have six fits which it has never done before, then you may just be unlucky. If, on the other hand, the seller represents a horse as rock solid, knowing it isn't and knowing that the proposed rider is a novice who wouldn't be able to cope, but what the hell, then that might be different. Each case turns on it's own facts and it is difficult to give authoratitive advice at this stage.
 
If the dealer was aware (or you can prove she was aware) that the horse was likelyto throw a fit when someone mounted, then she should be held liable. As a 5 year old, I would not expect it to behave like a newly broken horse.

Although you were looking for a project, did you actually mean a horse that was difficult to ride, or a horse that was a bit poor in condition and needed nurturing before it reached its potential?

If you were simply walking and the horse went ballistic, then I am afraid that I DO hold the dealer responsible as even the worst and most incompetent rider should be able to walk a horse around without the horse turning themselves inside out.

The dealer must have insurance. If she hasn't, then there is little point pursuing the claim as she is unlikely to have any money and I am sure didn't put you on board thinking the horse was likely to get you off. However, as the keeper of the horse at the time, she has to have some responsibility.

Do you know what happened to the horse after your accident? This will have a lot of bearing as to whether you can claim or not.
 
I agree with the above. There are more recent cases than the one above, all of which cement the judgement further. In my opinion, you have the basis of a case. Difficult to tell without the full facts, however I would certainly see a solicitor.

You wont put the dealer out of business because they should have adequate public liability insurance to deal with it.
 
sorry to see this. horrid. something similar happened to me last year. went to try a loan horse. sat on it, didnt even get him out of the drive before he bolted, bucked and dragged me down the side of my car smashing my car up and both my shins and causing me serious agony and physio for weeks and a hefty car bill. i did nothing wrong. i parked where i was told, rode where i was told and didnt even get into a trot. the owner turned nasty and i got no assistance from bhs so i lost out in many ways. i think i was even accused of not being used to riding tbs hah having ridden them for most of my life. interestingly i saw the owner at a recent show and noted with pleasure that the said horse "still seeks loanee / sharer / owner" a year on!! nuff said.
 
[ QUOTE ]
case is Mirvahedy-v-Henley, in which judgment was given by the House of Lords in 2003. It concerns horses which escaped onto a road causing a collision in which Mr Mirvahedy was seriously injured. No-one ever found out how the horses escaped; it was accepted that Dr and Mrs Henley had not been legally negligent, but they were liable under the Animals Act. The characteristic of the individual animal or of the species has be known to the owner/keeper.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not a Lawyer, just a Psychologist who has become vicariously familiar with personal injury law! It sounds like you are a Lawyer or training to become one - either way, you will know more about this than I will. However, I was thinking about the judgement a couple of months ago (don't recall the name of the case) in which a young woman who was injured in a road accident when the horse she was riding reared and she came off. She was employed by the owners of the horse and one of her duties was to exercise the horses. The owners had had this horse for some considerable time and it had never been known to rear before. Nevertheless, the court found them liable on the basis that any horse could potentially behave in this way and that they would have known this when allowing a third party to ride it and that consequently, they were liable!!!

I have to say that personally I found this to be a shocking and worrying ruling, with all sorts of alarming implications. Despite that though, surely it means the OP has a good case?
 
The OP has said she wanted a horse as a project to bring on, ie. a green horse that needs a bit of schooling........ NOT a 'project horse' as in off of the difficult and dangerous horse website!!!

Its a bit like having a garden as a project, doesnt mean it has to be dangerous.
 
I think the one are referring to would be the one in Cornwall last year or early this year. The outome of the case was terrible for the horse industry. The dealers name was Stokes. I will try to find a link to the story.
 
Yes, I am a lawyer and have been for 17 years. I am a clinical negligence and personal injury specialist, but I also do equine law and have written a book about it.

I found the Stokes case surprising, but the Court of Appeal agreed with the judge at first instance. The evidence appeared to turn on a a witness who said they had been told by a "passing motorist", who was never traced, that the horse was rearing. Now, there's rearing and there's rearing. A lay (non horsy) person seeing a horse poncing around taking the forefeet off the ground a little may describe that as rearing. A horsy person would see rearing as standing straight up on the hind legs for several seconds, possibly repeatedly. Who knows what happened here? Hearsay evidence can be taken into account and the CA said that the judge had given the correct weight to the hearsay evidence. So we're stuck with it, but my own opinion is that it was a bad decision.
 
Compensation culture.
crazy.gif

Sorry to hear about your accident, but accidents happen. We choose to partake in a dangerous and unpredictable sport with animals that have a mind of their own. You had seen the horse ridden twice before without incident. Therefore to me it doesnt sound like it was a case of negligence but one of those things that happen with a live animal.
 
Caried - you are then a very useful woman/man to know
smile.gif
I agree, it was a bad decision. If we thought about it too deeply, we should all worry about owning even the most placid horse and certainly never consider letting anyone else ride it
shocked.gif
 
I think dealers should ensure that all people trying their horses have their OWN personal insurance TBH!

As for FMM saying "If you were simply walking and the horse went ballistic, then I am afraid that I DO hold the dealer responsible as even the worst and most incompetent rider should be able to walk a horse around without the horse turning themselves inside out. " I disagree I am afraid. I have had someone who has represented their country in dressage get on one of my horses and within 10 yards the horse was bolting - not the horse's fault, he had never and never again did that, he just felt total pressure exerted immediately and said, rightly "F OFF".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top