Do you think I have a legal case?

[ QUOTE ]
QR

From what I can see, it's like test driving a car and the owner says "yeah the brakes work fine" you get it halfway down the road and it turns out they don't work. You crash, and break your hip. Same kind of situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is the same kind of situation at all. A car is much more predictable than a horse. A horse is alive. A car is a machine. The risks of a second hand car are much more predictable than those of a horse. Except in some cases, if the car is obviously a dangerous old wreck, the buyer should exercise their own common sense and avoid and not rely on the seller's representations.
 
What rubbish. I don't agree with this at all.
frown.gif


Cars are like horses ???

No way is it a similar scenario.
 
I think what the OP is trying to do is distinguish between a freak occurence (i.e. horse spooked at something, completely out of character) and a habitual behaviour (i.e. horse always spooks at everything).

I think we can all accept that even a horse described as safe for a novice/beginner is capable of putting in a spook and getting the rider off. Perhaps a more experienced rider would be able to sit the spook.

What happened here was there was a horse advertised as being safe etc for a novice. Rider held herself out as being very experienced, 25 yrs riding and BHS exams etc, therefore should be able to handle spooks. Horse spooked (I imagine it was a significant spook if it managed to get the rider off provided rider is everything she claims) and the owner did not seemed surprised by the behaviour, even suggesting that it was nothing. Now, either the spook was nothing and a reasonable rider should have been able to stay on, or the spook was significant and no rider would have stayed on. Further, was the spook out of character, or did the owner suggest in her comments that this was typical behaviour.

The question is, if we are to accept the above, does the OP have a case? Perhaps, if she could find a PI lawyer to take her case on but I doubt it would get very far, and probably would be settled out of court by the insurance companies. In practice I doubt anyone would take on the case, as on the balance of probabilities, the claimant would be unlikely to succeed although I supoose it is always possible to talk to some lawyers to sound them out (some PI lawyers will do a free initial consultation).

The trouble is, lots of sellers lie about what their horse is suitable for and lots of riders over estimate their ability. Not saying this was done here, but in those kind of circumstances you are always going to have people injured claiming the horse wasnt as described.
 
QR

You made a huge mistake getting on a strange horse (or any horse to be honest from my personal point of view) when you are pregnant but everyone makes mistakes and does things at the spare of the moment, you were only trying to help your friend out and obviously trusted the owner who was selling the horse, it happened, thankfully baby is ok and it was a very unfortunate accident.

But I don't think you have any right in trying to pursue a legal case, there is always a chance any horse will do something stupid and someone will come off and indure themselves as a result of it, pregnant or not.

Everyone takes a risk when going to view a horse, you tried in a school (a safe environment) and it was your choice to get on, I don't you can turn round and blame the owner either.

Its like gong to try a 'sensible' horse and not wearing a hat and then falling off and spliting your head open, who would you blame then?, the owner or yourself for not wearing a hat?

I do hope you make a full and speedy recovery ((hugs)) and if anything, people have learnt from your experience by reading your post.
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but I think you were really stupid to get on a strange horse whilst you were pregnant.
I am sorry that you've suffered injuries but since you have quals etc then you know full well that every insurer everywhere tells you riding is a risk sport.
I don't think you have a case for negligence against the owner and even if you found a solicitor to take it on then you'll have a heck of a job proving it.
Hope you feel better soon
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I agree with this. The thing is, the owner may truly believe the horse IS safe and sensible! She may have only had psycho horses in which case, in her opinion she may think this behaviour is normal! Its ALWAYS down to opinion, what is a schoolmaster to you may not be a schoolmaster to me. You ride at your own risk unfortunately and I really wouldn't have taken this risk when pregnant! It annoys me when people try to sue for something like this, its like people sueing riding schools when they fall off.

Horses can go totally differently with other people. I sold a warmblood a few years back - a teenager came to ride him and my horse bucked him off! The horse in question had never ever bucked with me in the 4 years I had him but those people looked at me like I was the biggest liar! Could be the same in this case? And because it had had a scare, it was wound up when the owner got back on?
 
Most people have a reason for selling a horse and in many cases this reason is not revealed to prospective purchasers.

The fact is that the seller of the horses has mislead you. The horse is not safe if it bolts in the very safe environment of a menage.

Get yourself the best legal team that money can afford and sue the seller for every penny they have got or are likely to earn in the future.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Going by some of the comments other posters have put on here perhaps we should never, ever get on a strange horse we don't know without being wrapped up in cotton wool from top to toe & taking out life insurance. Sorry but if the horse was as described this wouldn't have happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point a lot of people have been trying to make is that lots of us WOULDN'T get on a horse we didn't know whilst pregnant. I have been to try horses for a friend and wouldn't get on without a body protector and gloves, as well as the obligatory hat: wrapping myself up in cotton wool, so to speak? To me that is all common sense.

I do feel desperately sorry for you, and do think you have a point that the owner shouldn't have assured you it was fine to ride when from your account it sounds like it might have spooked/bolted with frequency.

However, I do hate the blame & claim culture, and if you have come to no permanent damage or financial loss, I would not personally pursue the route of sueing them. Sorry.
 
I have read through almost the entire list of responses, and agreed with many that said that you don't have a case. HOWEVER, I come from a family of all solicitors (I am the only non) and looking at it from another scenario may provide clarity on this issue.
Say it was a fully grown dog you were buying, and you wanted to walk it and see if you got along well. The owner assures you the dog is quiet and friendly. You take the dog for a walk supervised by the owner and the dog bites you and you end up in hospital. You would likely have a strong case against owner in that scenario even though you assumed the risk of walking an unknown dog.
Now switch the scenario to a horse, and you may indeed have a case.
BUT, having said that, I think you should take stock of your own responsibility in this. YOU were the one who decided to ride, and every time you swing your leg over a horse you know what you may be signing up for no matter how quiet the horse seems or is claimed to be! Hope you heal swiftly!
 
I dont think a comparison needs to be made with a dangerous dog, as there are plenty of cases about suing owners etc.

The other thing I forgot to mention is that the owner was demonstrating that the horse was suitable for a novice when they rode it first. On the basis that the horse did nothing, the OP got on.

If the horse had been a psycho for the owner or the owner had ridden it very carefully, then the OP might have had second thoughts about getting on. Especially as OP is pregnant and therefore was concerned about whether the horse was safe.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Get yourself the best legal team that money can afford and sue the seller for every penny they have got or are likely to earn in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]
Urgh
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have read through almost the entire list of responses, and agreed with many that said that you don't have a case. HOWEVER, I come from a family of all solicitors (I am the only non) and looking at it from another scenario may provide clarity on this issue.
Say it was a fully grown dog you were buying, and you wanted to walk it and see if you got along well. The owner assures you the dog is quiet and friendly. You take the dog for a walk supervised by the owner and the dog bites you and you end up in hospital. You would likely have a strong case against owner in that scenario even though you assumed the risk of walking an unknown dog.
Now switch the scenario to a horse, and you may indeed have a case.
BUT, having said that, I think you should take stock of your own responsibility in this. YOU were the one who decided to ride, and every time you swing your leg over a horse you know what you may be signing up for no matter how quiet the horse seems or is claimed to be! Hope you heal swiftly!

[/ QUOTE ]

I really hate this sue culture if I choose to get on a horse and it bucks me off thats my fault for getting on the horse..... If I trip over a loose paving slab then thats my fault for not looking where I am going
 
[ QUOTE ]
just a thought but 2 lawyers have posted on this thread, both think that there is little or no basis for a strong claim.
To be negligent you have to have a duty of care. I do not see how the seller had a duty of care (in the legal, not moral sense) to the rider here???

[/ QUOTE ]

If the lawyers who have posted here had made a study of cases over the past few years - and the calls for changes in the Animals Act 1971, which currently makes the horse owner liable for his horse's actions, they might have posted differently!

And there does NOT have to be a 'duty of care' for negligence to be proven (although it always helps.) I have no 'duty of care' to people who trespass on my land but if I had an unprotected slurry pit and a stray rambler fell into it and drowned, I WOULD be guilty of negligence. Similarly if my dog bites someone who wanders onto my property to ask for directions, I would be liable. And if my horse kicked out at a walker who'd strayed from a public ROW, I WOULD still be liable!

See http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/273025.html In this case the owner was bankrupted, although he was NOT in charge of the horse at the time and had no control over events leading up to the injuries sustained by Chris Kinane. There have been half-a-dozen cases reported in H&H over the past two years where the owner of a horse has been found strictly liable for the actions of their horse.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Get yourself the best legal team that money can afford and sue the seller for every penny they have got or are likely to earn in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

eh, are you for real? there is no wonder riding schools are closing down, because people are trying to claim left right and centre for every little thing.

Horses are dangerous animals with a mind of there own, you take a risk the moment you put your foot in the stirrup, pregnant or not.

The OP watched the owner ride the horse first, she even rode the horse for god knows how long on the other rein, it freaked, it bolted, she came off, it happens to the best of horses and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to buy themself a rocking horse or just condsider themselves lucky that its not happend to them yet.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just a thought but 2 lawyers have posted on this thread, both think that there is little or no basis for a strong claim.
To be negligent you have to have a duty of care. I do not see how the seller had a duty of care (in the legal, not moral sense) to the rider here???

[/ QUOTE ]

If the lawyers who have posted here had made a study of cases over the past few years - and the calls for changes in the Animals Act 1971, which currently makes the horse owner liable for his horse's actions, they might have posted differently!

And there does NOT have to be a 'duty of care' for negligence to be proven (although it always helps.) I have no 'duty of care' to people who trespass on my land but if I had an unprotected slurry pit and a stray rambler fell into it and drowned, I WOULD be guilty of negligence. Similarly if my dog bites someone who wanders onto my property to ask for directions, I would be liable. And if my horse kicked out at a walker who'd strayed from a public ROW, I WOULD still be liable!

See http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/273025.html In this case the owner was bankrupted, although he was NOT in charge of the horse at the time and had no control over events leading up to the injuries sustained by Chris Kinane. There have been half-a-dozen cases reported in H&H over the past two years where the owner of a horse has been found strictly liable for the actions of their horse.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it would seem people will have to buy horses un tried in the not too distant future. I think its all getting ridiculous
 
Erm, I dunno why you're quoting me there. I was just answering the womans question, not promoting the 'sue culture'. I told her she needed to take responsibility for her own actions too. I never once recommended she should sue, just offering another way of looking at her question.
 
[ QUOTE ]
And there does NOT have to be a 'duty of care' for negligence to be proven (although it always helps.) I have no 'duty of care' to people who trespass on my land but if I had an unprotected slurry pit and a stray rambler fell into it and drowned, I WOULD be guilty of negligence. Similarly if my dog bites someone who wanders onto my property to ask for directions, I would be liable. And if my horse kicked out at a walker who'd strayed from a public ROW, I WOULD still be liable!



[/ QUOTE ]

sorry - that's just incorrect. Negligence is any act or omission which falls short of a standard to be expected of “the reasonable man.” There is a general requirement that a duty of care is owed, and that there is sufficient proximity between the parties for the scope of the duty to be a reasonable one in the circumstances.

Point is, if the reasonable person knowing the history of the horse and what it was capable of, would have said the horse wasnt suitable for a novice (and not taking into account the OP's experience etc) then the seller was negligent. Of course they owed that duty of care to the OP regardless of whether she was pregnant or not (the fact she is pregnant is relevant for causation - you must take the plaintiff as you find them aka eggshell skull rule) which is why many people will describe their horse as not a novice ride, even though they themselves are novice riders. I wouldnt describe my horses as novices rides because one is a baby and unpredictable and the other is very sharp but predictable i.e. you know he is going to be spooky so are prepared. But I have had people who have never ridden before on them on the lead rein. No way I would describe either as a novice ride though, and if I did and something happened then yes I would be liable.

With the tresspassers example, there is a long line of cases which show that you actually do have a duty of care to trespassers with respect to any dangerous things that may be present on your land, hence why building sites have to be secured and suitable warnings placed everywhere etc.
 
Purely for the dog scenario.. I know you were not advocating suing & purely looking from a different viewpoint
grin.gif


I had started typing another dog scenario then changed it sorry
blush.gif
 
I agree with kenzo, I think your biggest problem is proving actually what the horse did, is there any video evidence or photos? When I have sold the last two horses, people came with someone else videoing the whole thing, which I think is a good thing.

I believe you said the owner rode the horse first and it was quiet? and then you rode it on one rein for quite a while before it did anything wrong? What witnesses were there?
was it just the owner, and you and your friend? then it's just your word against hers, courts won't take any notice of what your friend says because she would be biased in favour of you.

The seller in that case could say the horse hardly did anything at all, and you're a naff rider that's why you came off.

I'm just trying to say to you that you should just be soooooo glad that your baby and to a certain extent you...are both ok.
and for goodness sake leave it there.
 
Moral issues re riding unknown horse while pregnant aside, I'm in two minds re this.

On the one hand I can quite understand why you would be upset given that the owner was so reassuring having impressed on her the importance of the horse being 'safe' for you to get on. I would be furious- with myself AND with the seller. I'm surprised she was not more apologetic, I would have been mortified in her position... (but then I probably wouldn't have let a visibly pregnant woman on a horse of mine anyway for fear of exactly this type of situation!)

On the other hand though, you watched the horse ridden in walk, trot, and canter in the same surroundings that you were going to ride in, and satisfied yourself that it was safe enough to get on based on what you saw.

The fact that the horse reacted as soon as you put it into canter (when it was fine with the owner) does make me wonder a little bit whether your pregnancy could have had an effect on the situation. 5 months pregnant is about 24-28 weeks? Last time I was pregnant I gave up riding my own horse at 28 weeks because my centre of gravity had inevitably shifted and was making me sit in a really awkward position... I didn't really realise until I saw photos of myself at a dressage competition- I was so shocked I stopped riding altogether, I hadn't noticed how differently I was sitting and presumably my angel of a horse had grown accustomed to it as I gradually grew.

Now, you are a much more experienced horseperson than me, so far be it from me to suggest that you were unbalanced or sat in a way that would affect the horse negatively, but I think you need to consider the fact that it might have felt different enough for the horse to display a reaction- which the owner couldn't necessarily have predicted assuming visibly pregnant women don't ride it on a regular basis!

Tough one
frown.gif


I think the only way you will know for sure if you have a case is by speaking to solicitor familiar with these sorts of claims.

I hope you have a speedy recovery and that your baby continues to thrive, sounds a total nightmare and the last thing you need right now. I'm 30 weeks pregnant with my second baby at the moment and I feel as though I am walking through treacle as it is, I wouldn't like to be coping with it with a broken hip too
frown.gif
Get well soon x
 
[ QUOTE ]
I back and sell young horses as part of my business. I'm insured to the hilt and I still take EXTREME care when allowing anyone to try my youngsters. I'll get them to ride a 'quiet' horse first if I'm not convinced they have the experience to ride a youngster - and if they're not good enough, they are not allowed to try.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just purely out of interest, JG- would you have allowed a visibly pregnant woman to try one of your youngsters?

OP, first and foremost, I'm glad that you and your baby are all right- but are you sure you're not set on legal action to make your friend feel better? She must be feeling dreadful that she asked you to get on this horse, when her actions put you in hospital and could have led to you losing the baby.
 
QR:

The fact that the OP said the horse BOLTED with her (not just took off but BOLTED)seems to have been forgotten here hasn't it?
IME, no horse shoould bolt in a school especially one that is advertised as a novice ride...
This fact alone would anger me regardless of the fact I were preggers.
What if someone were trying this horse out for a child?

Something somewhere has gone very wrong for a horse to bolt in a school out of the blue...either that or the OP isn't as experienced as they are claiming and doesn't know a bolt from a spook.
 
[ QUOTE ]
either that or the OP isn't as experienced as they are claiming and doesn't know a bolt from a spook.

[/ QUOTE ]
This could be a possibility... so many people say they have been "bolted" with inaccurately.
 
QR

The thing is, what do people mean when a horse has bolted?

We may all have different views on this, did the horse spook and take flight, a fast canter and taken by suprise, you get left behind and come off backwards, could be easily done if your pregnant.

Is an arena big enough for a horse to bolt off with someone? I know ours isnt.

I'm not by no means saying the OP is not describing what happened is not correct, but person's idea of a horse bolting is not the same as someone elses, therefore could sound more dramatic to one person but not the other.

For example, to me when a horse bolts off with someone its gallops off and won't stop for nothing, jumping or crashing through what ever is in its way, they leave their brains behind so to speak.

That is something else that may get questioned in a legal case.

I know its straying off the subject but I do think its an intersting debate on how some things are view differently by everyone.
 
Bolting to me is a horse running off at speed without a care for what is around them or who is on board...ie dangerous.
IME, a horse can bolt anywhere if it so inclined. My friends little horse bolted round a 25 by 25 metre school. He also bolted around an olympic sized one but never out hacking. With him it was fear...when the rider tensed, he wss off...in a blind panic.
He was sold to a novice but competent rider and could have killed her....I'd be VERY surprised if this horse had never done it before my friend bought it. IMO, the seller was(in my friends scenario), at the very least, incredibly irresponsible.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have read through almost the entire list of responses, and agreed with many that said that you don't have a case. HOWEVER, I come from a family of all solicitors (I am the only non) and looking at it from another scenario may provide clarity on this issue.
Say it was a fully grown dog you were buying, and you wanted to walk it and see if you got along well. The owner assures you the dog is quiet and friendly. You take the dog for a walk supervised by the owner and the dog bites you and you end up in hospital. You would likely have a strong case against owner in that scenario even though you assumed the risk of walking an unknown dog.
Now switch the scenario to a horse, and you may indeed have a case.
BUT, having said that, I think you should take stock of your own responsibility in this. YOU were the one who decided to ride, and every time you swing your leg over a horse you know what you may be signing up for no matter how quiet the horse seems or is claimed to be! Hope you heal swiftly!

[/ QUOTE ]

I really hate this sue culture if I choose to get on a horse and it bucks me off thats my fault for getting on the horse..... If I trip over a loose paving slab then thats my fault for not looking where I am going

[/ QUOTE ]

that's totally different IMO. I recently fell down a manhole that wasn't secure. The person who installed it knew the lid didn't fasten and it had been reported before to the council. Was it my fault I fell down it? Maybe - I trod on it, but I didn't expect it to be insecure. I am going through a claim at the moment for this and have no issues about doing so
 
Im so glad that baby is fine and that you are ok

But i ditto in saying really stupid getting on a strange horse and as for the lady said it was safe and sensable you didnt know her and i can assure you there is no way i would take a strangers word for it.
 
I'm sorry you are injured, and wish you a speedy recovery.

However, I don't believe you have any case to sue the owner. I taught riding for a number of years, and had school horses and ponies who were 99% perfect - they would put up with all kinds of riders, wouldn't spook at wheelie bins, plastic bags or other such monsters, and I felt comfortable enough to put small children on these ponies day in and day out. On one Saturday, I had a ride of 4 children, all of whom could WTC and do small jumps unaided in a lesson. Suddenly, something made these ponies spook enormously, it was something outside the school, but I have no clue what, a small animal or bird is my best guess. I had 3 children on the floor and one round the neck of the pony. All 4 of those ponies I would sell as suitable for novices, because they had novice riders on most days of the week, every week, for years but it is proof positive that horses are not machines, and cannot be guarenteed to behave in a certain way. As someone with 25 years experience you should know this.

You say the owner "implied" that the horse had done it before. I don't see that from your description. She made the observation that it wasn't that big of a spook - I may tend to agree - a bolting horse isn't at the top of my 'worst spooks' list - it is going fast, but if you keep your weight balanced, taking weight to the outside on corners, all it is doing is going fast, and you may lose head control, but you still have your weight, your legs and your seat, not to mention your voice. I've had a horse bolt with me in an indoor school, so I know it is perfectly possible, but I sat there until it calmed itself down. I also possibly wouldn't express surprise at least not in an 'ohmigod' kind of way - if a horse is spooked the last thing I am going to do is let my voice or body language get out of control. I am very calm when accidents happen, to reassure both the horse and the rider. I throw up as the ambulance leaves the yard! But likely you wouldn't see shock in my face either.

One other factor to consider, that someone else has touched upon, the hormones in the body of a pregnant woman can make some horses loopy. One of the instructers I worked with had to stop going near two of our geldings when she became pregnant, as they became psycho when she was around - in the same way perfumes can set off some horses, the pherenomes can affect some horses. The horse in question may never have set a foot wrong, until his own hormones were affected by yours - and he spooked. It is certainly an avenue I would consider if I was the owner and you sued me. As you were in no fit state to examine the horse afterwards, you have no idea if it was stung by an insect etc, which I've known spook horses before (with due cause!). Also, at 5 months pregnant, your weight would be heavier than you are used to and your balance might have been off. If a horse is used to a balanced rider that could make it spook - again, I am balanced when I ride, it is hard to make yourself not balanced, so the owner was a quite, balanced rider, would have no way of knowing an unbalanced rider would cause issues with the horse. Presumably this woman is not a professional rider / instructor / dealer, so her opinion of 'safe' can only be based on her experiences. If I was a one horse owner, without qualifications, and I had a horse who had never bucked, spooked, reared, bolted etc with me, and you asked me if he was ok, I might well say 'of course' because you have NO prior knowledge of him being anything but good. I personally would phrase it or add a caveat 'as safe as any horse can be' perhaps, because I would never warrent a horse was 100% safe, because I have more experience than many one horse private sellers.

The fact that the owner demonstrated the horse, and by your own admission was exceptionally quiet, would suggest to me that the variable was you - be it the riding style, be it the pregnancy. I've seen 'capable riders' thrown off quiet horses because their style is so alien to how they are normally ridden. One of my old ones was a plod, lovely, older horse and I can and did put total novice boyfriends on. However, a 'capable rider' (own horse, events, hunts etc) rode him out one day as I needed a companion for a younger horse to hack out with, and she gave him a pony club kick (he may have been laid back but he was a TB!) and they vanished over the horizon, dumping her in the process.

There is a reason that riding schools carry signs that point out "Riding is a risk sport" - it is, and no horse, EVER can be considered 100% safe, accidents happen, and you need to let it go, as harbouring negative feelings isn't good for you or the baby - it will eat away at you and you will become bitter.
 
Oh, wishing you a very speedy recovery and safe delivery of your new baby. xxx

The same thing happened to me, about four years ago, just before I got Archie. I was assured the horse was an angel but when I got on it it exploded. I came off and landed heavily on my back, next stop A & E.

To be honest, I left with my tail between my legs. I was complascent, thought I could handle pretty much anything.

The seller never rang to enquire how I was ... cow.

It reminded me that when riding horses, whether you have owned one for years or are trying one out to buy, they all have the potential to throw a wobbly. Look at my bombproof Archie, got all excited in his field one day, threw me off as I got on to ride him up to the yard and six months later I have only just got back in the saddle again. I would have put my life savings on a bet that he would never have done such a thing ... but he did.

Its a very bitter pill to swallow but it is our choice, the riders choice, to get on a horse in the first place.

Only the seller knows whether she was totally truthful but I suspect, even though you have suspicions, a case could never be brought against her as it is just your opinion that she was untruthful - unless you can find someone who has tried the horse out before or can find its history ...
 
[ QUOTE ]


Only the seller knows whether she was totally truthful but I suspect, even though you have suspicions, a case could never be brought against her as it is just your opinion that she was untruthful - unless you can find someone who has tried the horse out before or can find its history ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost everyone on this thread has missed the main pertinent point - and that is that ANY horse owner has absolute liability for any injury caused by that horse to a 3rd party. That is a High Court ruling and until it is over-turned - or the law is changed - that's the way it is.

If you allow someone else to ride your horse - for whatever reason - and that person gets hurt, YOU are liable. Whether that person is a good rider - or not; whether the horse is normally good - or not - ALL that is irrelevent.

If you own horses, read the following carefully!!

"A recent case has brought further clarification to the law and spells out a warning for animal owners.

The case concerned a horse which reared up and threw its rider, a 17-year-old girl. The girl suffered a serious head injury as a result. The horse had no history of misbehaviour and the girl was considered competent to ride it. The girl sued the owners of the horse for negligence, or in the alternative, claimed that the owners were strictly liable for the injury under the Animals Act 1971.

The court rejected the allegation of negligence. However, it accepted that the owner of the horse was strictly liable under the Act.

The Act places strict liability on the keeper of an animal that does not belong to a dangerous species if the animal causes harm where the following points are satisfied:

1. where the damage is of a kind which, unless restrained, the animal was likely to cause or which, if caused, is likely to be severe; and
2. where the likelihood of the damage or its being severe is due to the characteristics of the animal which are not normally found in animals of the same species or are not normally so found except at particular times or in particular circumstances; and
3. where those characteristics are known to the keeper of the animal.

Our Legal Advice is that all three of these must be present for the animal’s keeper to be liable under the Act. The court considered that it was clear that an accident involving a horse rearing is likely to be severe and that in certain circumstances horses are likely to rear if not restrained. The court accepted that in certain circumstances horses are likely to act unpredictably and that the owners, as experienced keepers of horses, would know this. Accordingly, the court found the owners liable.

The owners appealed. In the Court of Appeal the case turned on whether the behaviour of the horse was ‘normal’. The Court held that normal means ‘conforming to type’ and that rearing is natural behaviour for horses in certain circumstances. The owners’ appeal was therefore rejected.

“The implications of this case for animal owners are potentially far-reaching,” says Litigation Lawyers. “If the likely result of an accident is severe and it occurs because of the normal behaviour of the unrestrained animal in particular circumstances, then the owner is likely to be found liable, even if the behaviour of the animal is unusual.”

At present, the practical solution to the problem this raises for animal owners is probably to be found in their insurance policies, which should be read carefully. MP Stephen Crabb is proposing changes to the Animals Act which would mean that strict, non-fault based liability would only be applied to genuinely dangerous animals and that an owner’s liability for damage caused by a non-dangerous animal would be limited to cases of fault via common law negligence claims or under health and safety legislation. The Government is reported to be sympathetic to a change in the law."

Unless/Until the law is changed, there is no fault liability upon a horse owner - there doesn't HAVE to be negligence!! I personally think this is unfair and stupid - as I'm sure most of you do - but it IS the law at present!
 
[ QUOTE ]


Just purely out of interest, JG- would you have allowed a visibly pregnant woman to try one of your youngsters?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I wouldn't. Even if she was NOT visibly pregnant but she had told me she was, I wouldn't let her get on even a quiet youngster - because youngsters ARE unpredictable, even if they have NEVER put a foot wrong. But then my youngsters are 3-4 years old and backed a couple of months. Even the very quietest - the 'dope on a rope' sorts - are advertised as 'experienced riders only' (not least because I don't want them wrecked!)

But then I'm a bit extreme - I have refused to sell a horse to a rider who 'coped' (just) because I KNEW that horse was not suitable for a rider of that standard and that - sooner or later - it would go horribly wrong (she wasn't grateful, either!
grin.gif
)

But my conscience rules my actions - and in the case of a pregnant woman, you are responsible for two lives!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top