Do you think I have a legal case?

Another lawyer here, though Scots law qualified and we are very different from England with different legislation and case law.

From a practical viewpoint consider the following.

Think how angry and upset you are now. Think about feeling this way for the next few years. You won't get to court that quickly and even if you do it could be appealed. This anger will be long term. However, depending on your personality, you perhaps would rather be angry for a couple of years than have the anger of giving this up. We are all different in that respect.

Say this women is as dishonest as the day is long and you win your case. You still have no guarantee of getting your money back. People can spin repayment out over years and in effect never repay. Maybe she is on benefits and has no insurance. Is she IS dishonest she will know her way round the court system and you will again be very angry, frustrated and perhaps spend a lot of ££££ on lawyer and DESPITE WINNING never see a penny off the woman and have to pay your solicitor yourself.

Maybe she has sold the horse. Do you know her full name, where she lives and have an address for her ? The yard may not give these details to you. If you don't have them - a PI will cost £££ to find her and you may never do it.

We are all different. As a lawyer I have had to let personal cases like this go as for me the money and I would win would never, ever make up fot the hassle. You may be very different and enjoy the fight. If so phone round lots of solicitors until you find someone willing to represent you. Maybe she will have insurance and it will go away and you will have a few thousand £ from it. The law is a lottery in many respects. Judges make mistakes and there are lots of miscarriages of justice. Being 'in the right' is meaningless.
 
FWIW this is what i think about this (its taken me ages to read through the whole post
crazy.gif
blush.gif
) :

- i feel really sorry for you and can understand why you are annoyed. if someone has advertised a horse like this and then assured you thats its safe and then this happened i WOULD be annoyed. However, the decision to get on the horse would still be mine to take independently and i would never go off the say-so of a woman i didn't know- yes they might say its safe but unless she has a crystal ball how can she see into the future?!
crazy.gif

i don't think you have a legal claim as you would have the burden of proof (which would be difficult) and it would drag on for years....but IMHO i think its morally wrong to think about sueing- yes you got hurt and yes the horse was possibly misrepresented but the decision taken was 100% YOURS and therefore its YOUR fault.....
crazy.gif
 
Writing as someone who is suing due to injury (thought completely different circumstance) i can tell you that 3 years down the line we are still awaiting aourt date in the next couple of years. Im sorry but you do not have a case, you will be laughed out of court, especially as you have all those qualifications as they will question your judgement. You took the risk to ride an unknown horse. All horse are unpredictable and you were in a possition to refuse to ride the horse, you didnt and you got hurt. you were not forced onto the horse or threatened or under duress to ride. you took that choice and now you have to face the consequences.

Im sorry for your injuries, i am glad the baby is alright. Though i would like to highlight that with your qualifications, you should know riding is considered one of the riskiest sports around, so why take the risk when 5 months pregnant? surely it isnt worth it?
 
p.s. my lawers expenses are huge already and we havent made it to court yet! you need a real water tight case to get to court otherwise the judge wont accept it. you need to prove negligence which is where you have to prove the other part was in the wrong. the injury substain doesnt swing it, there has to be negligence.


People sue too freely these days...
frown.gif
i know im suing but its completely different!
 
[ QUOTE ]
p.s. my lawers expenses are huge already and we havent made it to court yet! you need a real water tight case to get to court otherwise the judge wont accept it. you need to prove negligence which is where you have to prove the other part was in the wrong. the injury substain doesnt swing it, there has to be negligence.



[/ QUOTE ]

You are right that suing for injury can be expensive and can take a long time.

But how many times do I have to repeat that there does NOT need to be 'negligence' in an injury case involving horses because - as the law stands today in England and Wales (Scotland is different) the horse owner has absolute liability for injury/damage caused by their horse!! That is the High Court's interpretation of the Animal Act of 1971.

It is possible that any award of damages may be reduced if there was contributory negligence by the injured party (but the other side would have to prove the contributory negligence!)

That is the law as it stands today - right or wrong, fair or unfair - which is why ALL horses owners should have decent Public Liability insurance. You don't HAVE to be negligent to be liable. It's one of the reasons why Public Liability insurance is so expensive when related to horses - as compared to normal 'home owner' public liability which is cheap as chips!

Whether or not it will be worthwhile or sensible for the OP to sue - given the potential cost, the assets of the other party, the time it will take etc. etc. etc. is something only the OP can decide after consulting with a good lawyer. But she has a case - end of!
 
i have tried to keep out of this, but I do have to point out that strict liability for accidents - liability without fault or negligence in certain circumstances- is not automatic even under the Animals Act 1971 where an injury is caused. The Act is difficult to interpret, but basically it requires the Claimant to prove, usually with the assistance of expert evidence, that the animal in question behaved in a certain way as set out in the Act such that injury was likely to be caused and that that injury was likely to be severe. If this can be proved, then strict liability may follow. It is usual to sue in negligence and under the Animals Act to be on the safe side.

See Freeman and Higher Park Farm 2008 for a case where the Claimant failed to do this and lost - no use of expert evidence, mind.
 
My understanding is also that there is an exclusion of liability if the person suffering the injury has voluntarrily accepted the risk, so in this case it would go back to the OPs original point that she had tried to verify that there was no unusual risk here - again, it will come down to a question of proof!
 
I would tend to listen to the lawyers.
I'd like to ask a question again that has been put several times, but you haven't answered. It appears that you were viewing the horse in your professional capacity - do you have your own insurance?? As people have spent so much time answering your thread it seems only reasonable that you reply to them.
Use your professional insurance to get some legal advice.
By the way, just because people don't agree with you, it doesn't mean they are missing the point. It means that their view of "the point" differs with yours.
Hope you make a speedy recovery, whatever the rights and wrongs of suing the owner, it was a horrible experience.
 
Am I right in thinking it comes down to whether it was 'likely' for the horse to behave in such a way? If so, I am guessing it comes down to whether the court believes that a calm horse (demonstrated as such by the owner by her riding him first) with no history of misbehaviour (which is what I guess the owner would claim) is likely to bolt in an indoor school and moreover, that the rider is likely to sustain serious injury from a bolt. IME I would say it was a) unlikely behaviour, having worked with a large number of horses in an indoor school for several years, and having one recollection of a horse truely bolting in that time) and b) unlikely to cause severe injury because all it is is a horse going fast - rearing and bucking are more likely to cause severe injury.

Also, with the case Janet mentioned, it the liability affected by the fact the girl was under 18? Was the a greater responsibility as she was a minor? Would the fact that the OP has BHS qualifications reduce the liability of the owner, in that the OP must, by virtue of those qualifications, be aware of the nature of the animals and entered into it knowing this?
 
QR

Shocked at the rudeness of some replies on this thread - OP only asked a question!

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think it's that outrageous to ponder this. IF the horse has known issues, and IF the seller knows this and is advertising it as a safe horse suitable for a novice, and IF she then also let a pregnant lady get on it...that's awful and shouldn't be allowed. And, not saying this is the case here, but we all know there are sellers out there who do this kind of thing!

And as for "it's only a bolt if it goes through the fence/runs for miles/an hour", poppycock. OP sounds experienced enough to know the difference between a spook or scoot, and a horse flipping into out of control mode for no good reason that anyone can see. It could be a pain issue - and if it is, then it's no doubt repeatable, and has happened before.

I have no idea, neither does OP - at the moment. But it probably wouldn't be hard to dig a bit to find out one way or the other, could even put poor seller in the clear!

I don't see anything ridiculously irresponsible about getting on horses for a friend who is trying out safe horses. Or rather, there SHOULDN'T be.

Good luck OP, hope you're not in too much pain and great news that the baby is safe
smile.gif
xx
 
[ QUOTE ]
you would not have got a different comment from me if you were not pregnant. A private seller does not owe you a duty of care (unlike an employer for example) and all of us get on horses of our own free will in the full knowledge that horses are living breathing creatures capable of doing crazy things.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the OP had bought the horse and this happened?

Doesn't the horse still have to match the description? I (well via a dear friend) have experience of this during a private sale and my friend lost on a technicality due to the wording of the advert.

To the OP. I would assume if you did sue the horse owner's solicitor would obviously take your pregnancy into account when the case is heard. Pregnancy does affect the body and I am pretty sure they would argue that's not not possible to prove you would have broken your hip had you not been pregnant.

I wish you well......trying to think which HHO regular is 5 months pregnant. I really should pay more attention!

 
Surely tho, if it was an ongoing pain issue, he would have had an issue with the owner riding first of all, and when the owner rode him afterwards - he was ruffled afterwards, but didn't bolt again - if it was a known, repeating pain issue you could reasonable expect to see evidence of it before and after the spook, but he didn't exhibit those signs.

I have tried a number of horses, both personally, and on behalf of clients (paid and unpaid). When I have done this, I take reasonable measures to ensure the horse was as described - I check the age of the horse, I ask the owner to ride first, and if I decide to ride I do so in the knowledge that the horse may react differently to me, and as such know full well I am taking a risk, just as I do when I get on any other horse. No one is forcing me to ride, and I personally wouldn't ride an unknown horse if pregnant, however if someone chooses to do so, that is up to them, knowing the risks. The onus is on the individual to decide whether to ride while pregnant not the owner.

From what the OP has said, the horse was ridden before hand and was quite, and ridden afterwards and behaved. As the OP has extensive experience and describes herself as such, it would not be unreasonable to assume she could ride the horse. Something happened (that the OP did not know the cause of (an educated observer may have seen something in the OPs riding style, or an insect, or something else that would not have been observed by the OP) and the horse spooked.

I've been to see horses that were most certainly not as descibed (a 3 year old being sold as an 8 year old for example) and green youngsters being described as schoolmasters. Before anyone rides, I ask questions about how the horse goes - experience he has had, types of riders who have ridden him, whether he has any quirks (like a little kick out when going into canter) whether he has ever reared / bucked / bolted / etc. If the OP had asked such questions, my opinion is that she would have stated so in her original post - "The owner told me catagorically that the horse has never bucked / reared / spooked / bolted" but she didn't, she relied on the owner saying the horse was suitable, which she demonstrated it was when she rode it. You can ascertain an awful lot from the answers to those questions, both the answers themselves and how the owner is when they respond. If they give you any reason to doubt the horse, you walk away, and I have done so.

It may be that this 'owner' turns out to be an unscruplous dealer, in which case, it may be a different issue, but people can only go on what was posted. As a horse owner it would be incredibly detrimental to the industry if someone was sucessful in persuing a case against a one-horse owner, whether experienced or inexperienced, as you will then be in the situation where no one will allow you to try a horse before you buy it, or every horse will be described as 'horrendously behaved idiot' just in case it were to do something, and no one would ever be able to find a decent horse.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to ask a question again that has been put several times, but you haven't answered. It appears that you were viewing the horse in your professional capacity - do you have your own insurance?? As people have spent so much time answering your thread it seems only reasonable that you reply to them.
Use your professional insurance to get some legal advice.


[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect the OP has run a mile after some of the pretty insulting replies she received! But there is nothing in the original post to suggest the OP was viewing the horse in a professional capacity. She says she went to see the horse "as an advisor for a friend" (as many of us might.) She mentions her experience and qualifications to show she is not a NOVICE rider. None of those qualifications - by themselves - would suggest she'd be capable of riding - or chose to ride, even if not pregnant - a very difficult horse!

And just because someone has done an equine degree and passed their BHSAI does NOT mean they are a professional rider/instructor - nor that they would require professional insurance!

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, just because people don't agree with you, it doesn't mean they are missing the point. It means that their view of "the point" differs with yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we're not talking opinions here - we're talking about the law! And while the lawin this case might be open to interpretation, it HAS been interpreted by the High Court.

There may be small changes in individual circumstances that may sway an individual case in one direction or another - and an individual Judge may chose to ignore the High Court's interpretation (although I wouldn't want to gamble on it!) But - as it stands - if you allow other people to ride or handle your horse, you are likely to be held liable for any damage it does by behaving as a horse might be expected to behave (even if he's never done it before!!)

[ QUOTE ]
See Freeman and Higher Park Farm 2008 for a case where the Claimant failed to do this and lost - no use of expert evidence, mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

The big difference in that case was that the rider had been told the horse usually bucked when going into canter - but chose to ride the horse. Prior to the Plaintiff's fall, the horse had bucked going into canter and the rider had said she was happy to continue riding it. The OP specifically asked for assurance that the horse was safe - and was told it was - otherwise she wouldn't have ridden it! While she may have taken a risk in relying on the owner's word, I shouldn't think that the fact that the owner may have lied would lead the Court to find she'd accepted the risk!
 
Yes, indeed - on reflection, perhaps Freeman was not the best case to illustrate the point - it is better for the concept of volenti (voluntary assumption of risk - I qualify that by saying known risk, otherwise you can't consent to it!) and I should have been a bit clearer on that. Volenti can indeed be a defence.

To Camilla and Emma, yes, the "characteristic" or behaviour has to be known to the owner and/or keeper, either as a characteristic of the species, the species in certain circumstances, or the individual animal. Therefore it can be a defence to say that the horse/dog/cow, whatever, has never exhibited that behaviour before and therefore the owner/keeper didn't "know" about it. It can be shown to be a characteristic of a species as a whole, however and if you have kept that species for a long time, it can be difficult to argue you didn't know about it as characteristic of that species.

And yes, the behaviour/characteristic has to be such that if it is exhibited it is likely to cause an injury which is likely to be severe. I was involved peripherally in a case which was potentially going to the Court of Appeal, the Claimant having won at first instance, which settled after I and others helped the defendants to compile statistics to show that while the behaviour complained of could indeed result in an injury, the statistics we compiled showed this was neither "likely" nor was any resulting injury "likely" to be severe. It did not reach CA.

The reason I didn't elaborate too much on the ins and outs is that the Act is as I said difficult to interpret and is very fact sensitive. For what it's worth, I think the pregnancy aspect in this particular case ( and I would stress that) is a bit of a red herring when looking at liability. But I don't want to go on too much as it it is really difficult to give any sensible individual advice on a forum and the OP's best bet is as suggested to have a chat with a specialist solicitor if she is still considering taking it further.
 
I really need to do some work, not sit here reading legal opinions! So I shall keep this brief!

Non dangerous species do not have a regime of strict liability imposed upon them unless:
(a) the damage is of a kind which the animal, unless restrained, was likely to cause or which, if caused by the animal was likely to be severe; and
(b) the likelihood of the damage or of the damage being severe was due to 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
(c) those characteristics were known to the keeper.

It appears from the act that all three points have to be satisfied.

In the description the OP has given, you could argue either
i. That as in Elliott v Townfoot Stables [2003], (a) is not applicable as damage is a mere possibility, not 'likely'.
ii. In Mirvahedy v Henley, due to the special circumstances of the case, the judges did not have to rule on what 'likely' meant - if you follow the guidance given, it notes it should mean 'be reasonably expected'. It is not to be 'reasonably expected' that a horse bolts therefore in any other case, the claimant would need to show that it is reasonably expected that a horse bolts when ridden - riding schools up and down the land testify to the contrary otherwise they would not be in business.
iii. That as all horses are 'flight or fight' animals, when scared, ALL horses would, if able, display flight tendencies (bolting) and thus normally found in the species
iv. That in particular circumstances (presence of a pregnant woman) horses do exhibit unusual tendencies and therefore in those circumstances normal to the species in those particular circumstances
v. The court takes the view that the knowledge applies to the specific animal and that the owner did not have prior knowledge as the horse had never bolted before
vi. View of specific animal and that the owner did not have prior knowledge of how the horse would react to the presence of a pregnant woman and thus the behaviour exhibited by her horse to it.

Reading a few legal opinions on Mirvahedy v Henley it seems that it would not necessarily have an effect on future cases, as strict liability does normally need part (a) to be met - special concessions existed in that case. Any other claimant would need to prove all three parts for strict liability to apply. Part (c) is also very difficult to establish. It seems to be a recognized opinion that it is still very difficult and far from clear cut to prove strict liability and you cannot rely on Mirvahedy v Henley as sole precedent as there were special circumstances involved.
 
I haven't read all the posts so apologies if I'm repeating what's been said already, but 2 points to make:

One, over the years I've come to realise that one persons' version of safe and bombproof isn't anothers.

I for one, hate horses that spook (and I have an inherent spooker...great!), but I have a friend or 2 whose horses can also spook violently, and they say to me that their horse is brilliant and safe.

That's not my idea of safe!! But it is there's because that sort of thing doesn't scare them.

Secondly, I wonder whether this horse was upset by your pregnant state? They often can tell that there is something different about the way you carry yourself. Or you smell different.

Another of my friends' horses has been more accurate at spotting a pregnancy than a pregnancy test!!!

I think we have all been in this boat before with trying horses. I certainly have.
 
Now do you see why I didn't want to go into too much detail! This Act and it's interpretation has kept lawyers happily occupied for some years now and theoretically interesting though it is (well, to us sad people it is), it is very difficult to advise any individual on their prospects of success, particularly if you happen to have a non horsy judge at trial.

It is interesting to note that the Jill Cadenza case, where the claimant lost, was heard by a judge in Norwich who is a sporting and hunting man and he gave a, shall we say, robust judgment in dismissing the claimant's case, making comments along the lines of "Well, the English countryside is not manicured, you know" as the claimant's case was that she's been knocked from her horse by a low hanging branch or something, can't remember exactly. You have to wonder whther the outcome would have been different had the case been heard by say a judge who usually did commercial or family cases and didn't know one end of a horse from the other. It's such a lottery once you get to trial and it's no wonder we try to avoid it if we can.
 
"robust judgement" - I love it!

OP - just a thought - is it possible that the horse may have been spooked by you being pregnant? I don;t want this to come across as offensive, just that I have heard things like racehorse trainers not letting pregnant women near horses before races because it upsets them. The owner claims the horse acted out of character, the horse was upset afterwards...possible?
 
Yup, some horses are certainly affected by the pregnancy hormones - we had a couple my pregnant co-worked couldn't go near as they went nutty! You are right about racehorse owners too, I've heard that one.
 
I'd like to point out it is gone 7 and I am still catching up after getting engrossed in the opinions I was reading! I do think the individual judge and their experiences affect outcomes, not just with horsey cases, but all kinds of things! My friend's father is a judge, and over dinner he would tell us EXCACTLY what he thought of some of the people he had had before him that day, and his rulings did not come as a surprise, given how well we knew him!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yup, some horses are certainly affected by the pregnancy hormones - we had a couple my pregnant co-worked couldn't go near as they went nutty! You are right about racehorse owners too, I've heard that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

After a lifetime with horses, and often with pregnant staff, I have never seen ANY evidence that the pregnancy of a handler of itself affects a HORSE's behaviour. It has - in some cases - changed the staff member's behaviour/confidence (more cautious about being hurt) and THAT has had repercussions on certain horses' behaviour. I would put this in the 'old wives' tales' category!
 
I would have a tendancy like Janet to put this in the old wives category too as I have never seen it happen myself, or as Janet says the handler has lacked confidence etc. However, given dogs can smell cancer then I am pretty sure horses can detect changing hormones too so I would never say never.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top