Dog owner being sued for £5m after rider was thrown from horse

[DirectorFury]

As a dog and a horse owner, I've tried to see it from both points of view. I always put my dog on a lead around horses but I take him on beaches quite frequently and if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction, I'm not confident he'd come back if called as he wouldn't hear me. Just a thought though. I got bucked off a hired horse hacking across Exmoor. I'd ridden him several times before and he was a safe forward responsive ride called Thruster, name gives you a clue of what he'd done in a previous life. We were on a day ride, just four of us and I was last cantering along a track, walkers suddenly appeared from nowhere and I pulled him up, the other three horses also pulled up but were some several metres a head of me. He bucked me off because that was where he was used to cantering, I'd stopped him and he was used to being with the other horses. These horses enjoy a good canter in a group, it gets their blood up! Luckily I was sore but otherwise OK. tbh I doubt he'd have turned a hair at a dog chasing him or getting under his feet. I've only read the fairly brief account but my understanding is that the rest of the ride continued on their second canter and I would imagine loose dogs are a pretty common occurrence on beach rides, my money would be on the horse got upset because he was separated from his pals and denied his usual blast on the beach.

I read the situation as they'd seen the loose dog, had a canter with the dog chasing them, had stopped/finished the canter, and then the dog caught up and went under the horse. If the rider held the horse back as the group cantered off then I'm surprised they brought the case at all, though I suppose stranger things have happened! Hopefully there will be some reporting from the court.

Edit: From the DM -
"He says Max had shown initially only a 'mild interest' in the horses that day and he only ran after them when they cantered a second time.

'Perhaps because the horses had passed at speed, perhaps out of curiosity or perhaps out of a sense of fun, Max turned and ran towards the group of horses who had just passed him,' says Mr Arentsen.

He adds: 'The accident occurred because the group of horses stopped, having cantered past Max, and because the claimant lost control of his horse and lost his seat upon the same.'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ing-dog-owner-5m-suffering-spinal-injury.html

It sounds like they passed and stopped quite close to the dog.

 

[Clodagh]

I must admit I wouldn’t put mine on a lead but they really are always under 100% control in public.
I hope the rider wins. People need to think and if a financial scare helps wake them up then good.
If my dog caused an RTA I’d be liable (SFAIAA) so this is no different. Either train or leash.
Insurance is often covered by your household insurance.

 

[criso]

I read the situation as they'd seen the loose dog, had a canter with the dog chasing them, had stopped/finished the canter, and then the dog caught up and went under the horse. If the rider held the horse back as the group cantered off then I'm surprised they brought the case at all, though I suppose stranger things have happened! Hopefully there will be some reporting from the court.

Edit: From the DM -
"He says Max had shown initially only a 'mild interest' in the horses that day and he only ran after them when they cantered a second time.

'Perhaps because the horses had passed at speed, perhaps out of curiosity or perhaps out of a sense of fun, Max turned and ran towards the group of horses who had just passed him,' says Mr Arentsen.

He adds: 'The accident occurred because the group of horses stopped, having cantered past Max, and because the claimant lost control of his horse and lost his seat upon the same.'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ing-dog-owner-5m-suffering-spinal-injury.html

It sounds like they passed and stopped quite close to the dog.

So they are trying to say the riders caused the accident by stopping. If they'd carried on cantering, no doubt they could have been blamed for not stopping.

If I was cantering, trotting or even walking and a dog started chasing I would pull up. Partly so as not encourage the chasing and to give the owner a chance to get hold of the dog. Also dog less likely to get stepped on.

 

[SilverLinings]

Surely as the dog ran after the horse and got that close it was not 'under control in a public place' so the owner should be liable? You (one) shouldn't let your dog chase and harass anyone/animal whether you think they will/won't be scared/like it, so ignorance of how a horse may react couldn't be used as an excuse. I don't understand why a) someone would risk an injury to another person that could be easily avoided or b) risk their dog being trodden on or kicked by a horse.

If the dog had run after a person and knocked them over resulting in a broken neck (or other injury) then the owner would be liable.

Saying that the dog had only shown 'mild interest' in the horses that day implies that either the dog usually reacts or owner has never seen how the dog behaves around horses before, both of which would be common sense reasons to put the dog on a lead. If the dog's recall was solid then the owner could have stopped it as soon as it started heading for the horses (if the owner was watching).

I would have thought that from a legal POV it is irrelevant whether the horses were stationary or cantering*, as either way if the dog was under control/on a lead it would have left them alone. Dogs aren't let off after chasing livestock just because the sheep started running so the dog 'couldn't help themselves'. Equally an attack on a child wouldn't be seen to be less of the dogs fault if the child was running away at the time.

* In reality I do agree with others who have pointed out that it would generally be safer to keep a horse standing still around a loose dog as fleeing encourages the dog to chase.

 

[Wishfilly]

Not that long ago, a friend's horse was bitten by a dog whilst she was riding on a beach. Her horse kicked out and the owners apparently started talking about suing her for vets' bills.

There does seem to be a rise in idiot dog owners. I turned back on a walk last week as there was a dog walker in the next field seemingly encouraging his dog to play with the young cattle. No thanks!

It sounds tricky to know what actually happened on the ride, but the dog clearly wasn't under control. I think it's really difficult when you take rides out- because also people will feel they haven't got their money's worth if they don't get a canter because of e.g. dog walkers, and you're making constant split second judgements, with people who haven't always been fully honest about their own ability. You'd be surprised at the number of people who will e.g. put down they are an experienced rider- but haven't been on a hack before, and don't tell you that until they are up on the horse!

I imagine just the threat of being sued will make a lot of riding schools more risk averse. I really hope he doesn't win his claim against the riding school- because I do think it will really limit the activities of riding schools and reduce the ability of people to learn to ride out safely (and for those without horses to enjoy hacking in the countryside). I used to work for a riding school that did have their own land for hacks, and it was amazing, although not totally hazard free due to pheasants and dear! But solely sticking to your own land is limiting, as well, and it's important (in my opinion) that people get the chance to e.g. ride on roads and learn how to manage traffic etc, as well as being able to hack in a more controlled environment.

I have to say I feel that some dog owners need a bit of a reminder that they can't just allow their dogs to do as they like consequence free!

 

[Miss_Millie]

Last year I got attacked by off-lead dogs twice. One was a working farm dog and the other was a mastiff type. Both times I was just walking along, minding my own business. Adding a horse into the mix just makes things 100x more risky and disastrous. I feel for the injured man and I think the dog owner was truly irresponsible.

 

[The Irish Draft 2022]

There is no way this rider will win this case for the reason being horse riding is seen as a risk spot so if you get seriously injured your done this at your risk. The dog didn’t attack it’s chased the horse rider fell off because the horse bucked him off not because the dog attacked. So the horse was unpredictable and shouldn’t be on the beach.

This is the type of argument the dog owner legal team will use horse riders never win these cases. so unfortunately the injured man will end getting nothing and the irresponsible dog owner will get away with it.

 

[DirectorFury]

I’ve heard via some local FB pages that the rider won his case against the riding stables (who’ve since shut down) which must prejudice his case against the dog owner?

 

[Wishfilly]

There is no way this rider will win this case for the reason being horse riding is seen as a risk spot so if you get seriously injured your done this at your risk. The dog didn’t attack it’s chased the horse rider fell off because the horse bucked him off not because the dog attacked. So the horse was unpredictable and shouldn’t be on the beach.

This is the type of argument the dog owner legal team will use horse riders never win these cases. so unfortunately the injured man will end getting nothing and the irresponsible dog owner will get away with it.

Sorry, but that's untrue. Riders have won cases against riding stables, horse owners, motorists etc before- it's not as simple as "do at your own risk".

The dog was not under control, which is the law.

I don't know what will happen in this case, but to say there is no way he will win is wrong.

 

[misst]

I just do not understand why someone would not put a dog on a lead if horses are nearby. I always put mine on. We have lots of people hacking on the common and occasionally they come off the bridle paths and "appear" on the woodland areas suddenly. I always get leads on my dogs though both are good and quiet around horses. The horses should not be off the bridle paths but at the same time I have a live and let live attitude. There is a lady with a JRT who complains all the time that riders shout at her because her dog chases them. She seems to have no idea at all how dangerous this can be for her dog and the riders. Interestingly I have not seen her for a few months so maybe she goes somewhere else now.
Mine have shown "interest" (ie I think they would have chased/barked if not on lead) when horses are cantering nearby.

 

[Wishfilly]

I’ve heard via some local FB pages that the rider won his case against the riding stables (who’ve since shut down) which must prejudice his case against the dog owner?

Surely that would be mentioned in the news reports? I wonder if they settled out of court or similar?

Obviously we don't know exactly what happened, but I do think it is getting so difficult to run a riding school now, and that can't be good for the future of the sport.

 

[The Irish Draft 2022]

Sorry, but that's untrue. Riders have won cases against riding stables, horse owners, motorists etc before- it's not as simple as "do at your own risk".

The dog was not under control, which is the law.

I don't know what will happen in this case, but to say there is no way he will win is wrong.

There has been a few of cases where I live where riders have got injured by lose dog and none of them have won there cases. It’s the arguments people will use in court.

 

[Wishfilly]

There has been a few of cases where I live where riders have got injured by lose dog and none of them have won there cases. It’s the arguments people will use in court.

If that argument held true, no-one would ever be able to bring a court case around being injured whilst riding, which is clearly not the case.

Have you got any more details about the cases? (PM if you prefer) I imagine there is a lot more to it than "riding is a risk sport".

 

[Shilasdair]

I imagine it also depends on how the rider described his abilities prior to the ride.

I used to work in a centre which did 2 hour 'fast' beach rides - and the customers had to fill out a form. The number of people who wrote 'expert' or 'advanced' amazed me - and they were always the truly terrible riders. The ones who were cagey about 'Can W,T, C' were generally the good riders.

Although, by the time you send someone to get their horse out of the stable, and to the mounting block, you know EXACTLY how well they can ride.

 

[Wishfilly]

This case, for example: https://www.horsesolicitor.co.uk/si...ed-13750-following-dog-attack-in-country-park

Seems to show it is possible to win such a case.

I imagine it all comes down to the specifics of the incident, but it's obviously not impossible to win such a case.

I think in a lot of cases, people don't pursue legal action for various reasons.

 

[Wishfilly]

I imagine it also depends on how the rider described his abilities prior to the ride.

I used to work in a centre which did 2 hour 'fast' beach rides - and the customers had to fill out a form. The number of people who wrote 'expert' or 'advanced' amazed me - and they were always the truly terrible riders. The ones who were cagey about 'Can W,T, C' were generally the good riders.

Although, by the time you send someone to get their horse out of the stable, and to the mounting block, you know EXACTLY how well they can ride.

The place I used to work switched to a form where riders had to tick skills they could do, ranging from basic walk/trot to hacking to jumping to jumping outside an arena etc.

It makes sense that people want to do something different on holiday, but we got a fair number of riders who could walk/trot/canter/jump reasonably in an arena, but rarely if ever hacked out- and you definitely want to find that out before they go down the first steep hill!

I agree you can tell a lot just by seeing someone mount a horse though!

 

[Keith_Beef]

That case was not heard in court, so it was not won.

While liability for the incident was initially denied, witness evidence was obtained and the claim settled without the need to go to court. The claimant got £13,750 in damages.

 

[Wishfilly]

That case was not heard in court, so it was not won.

If it's impossible to win such a case, why would the owner bother settling? I said "seems to show it is possible to win such a case" not that the case was won.

 

[Flyermc]

There is ALWAYS a requirement for dogs to be under control in English law, no matter where the dog is, even in a private garden.

If the dog had killed a child would that have been all right on that beach?

No, of course not. The law requires owners to be in control of their dogs.
.

I do see what you mean, but a dog of the lead barking and running around on a beach or in a garden, where there is no requirement to be on a lead. The dog (from what ive read) startled the horse, who then bucked?

The chap need to claim against the RS insurance and if that insurance company feels that the dog owner is at fault, that RS insurance company would then counter claim, to reclaim all or part of the payout from the dog owner.

 

[HashRouge]

I do see what you mean, but a dog of the lead barking and running around on a beach or in a garden, where there is no requirement to be on a lead. The dog (from what ive read) startled the horse, who then bucked?

The chap need to claim against the RS insurance and if that insurance company feels that the dog owner is at fault, that RS insurance company would then counter claim, to reclaim all or part of the payout from the dog owner.

I think the point ycbm is making is that the dog needs to be under control. The fact that it was off lead is irrelevant, it should still be under control. Because it was not under control, the dog got far too close to the horse (between the back legs I think?) and caused the accident. The dog should never have been allowed to get that close to the horse, full stop.

To be honest I have no idea how this one will play out, but my sympathy is firmly with the rider rather than the dog owner.

 

[Flyermc]

Do you really need a sign reminding you of the law? @Flyermc

No, i dont have a dog or a horse

I do have a 7 year old who is scared of dogs and owners who regularly allow them to run up to her (all happy and jolly) but still scare her! i dont imagine that the law would class them as out of control?

 

[Tracking_up]

That case was not heard in court, so it was not won.

I think if some one/claimant was bringing a case in a civil court, and it was settled outside of court with a monetary sum paid over to the claimant, then I'd consider it a 'win' even if it was more of a moral victory. For whatever reason, the defendant felt it appropriate to 'cut their losses' and settle with a payment.

It might be better to agree that case doesn't set a precedent, on the basis it was settled without going to court.

 

[ycbm]

No, i dont have a dog or a horse

I do have a 7 year old who is scared of dogs and owners who regularly allow them to run up to her (all happy and jolly) but still scare her! i dont imagine that the law would class them as out of control?

If they can't be recalled they're out of control. Do you ask for them to be recalled? I am partially sighted and I routinely ask owners to recall their loose dogs from under my feet.

The rider of a flight animal which can't be reasoned with or reassured like a child can be shouldn't have to ask an owner to recall their dog. The owner should realise that the risk to their own dog is such that the animal should be recalled, even if they don't understand the risk to a rider.
.

 

[criso]

I do see what you mean, but a dog of the lead barking and running around on a beach or in a garden, where there is no requirement to be on a lead. The dog (from what ive read) startled the horse, who then bucked?

The chap need to claim against the RS insurance and if that insurance company feels that the dog owner is at fault, that RS insurance company would then counter claim, to reclaim all or part of the payout from the dog owner.

The dog allegedly ran between the stationary horse's back legs. That's a bit different to running around nearby and spooking a horse.

We also dont know who is initiating the claim. If the person had their own insurance, their company might be suing.

 

[ester]

of course the law would count that as out of control. Especially since the wording changed fairly recently too.

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

No, i dont have a dog or a horse

I do have a 7 year old who is scared of dogs and owners who regularly allow them to run up to her (all happy and jolly) but still scare her! i dont imagine that the law would class them as out of control?

It could do, if there was concern about her being injured by the dog for example if there was a risk of her being knocked over by one even if it was 'only playing'.

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public

Really sorry to read she has had these experiences regularly. It is completely out of order that people can't enjoy their local spaces because heaven forbid some people's dog's fun be curtailed in any way!

 

[Keith_Beef]

It might be better to agree that case doesn't set a precedent, on the basis it was settled without going to court.

You're right, that's the point that I was trying to make.

When one party has much deeper pockets that the other, a solicitor might well advise the client to settle out of court without admitting wrongdoing, rather drag out the proceedings and being found to be in the right but financially ruined.

The Vardy v. Rooney case going through the courts is quite instructive. The maximum award that the plaintiff could win is much lower than the legal costs already incurred.

 

[alibali]

One of the animals involved in this case was restrained using appropriate equipment, the other was not. I really fail to see where the debate is in this matter. Clearly one person has their animal under control to the best of their ability only losing control in the face of significant provocation. The other had no control and made no attempt to regain it.

 

[AmyMay]

No, i dont have a dog or a horse

I do have a 7 year old who is scared of dogs and owners who regularly allow them to run up to her (all happy and jolly) but still scare her! i dont imagine that the law would class them as out of control?

A person only has to feel threatened (in law) for action to be taken against the owner of a dog deemed to be out of control. Out of control means (basically) not listening to it’s owner or having been trained appropriately to be in public.

 

[SO1]

A very sad situation.

Ride leader should have identified loose dog as a potential hazard and if within speaking distance of dog owner asked him to put dog on lead for 10 minutes so they could canter and get a decent distance away.

If loose dogs are a regular occurrence on the beach riders should be briefed on what to do if one runs up to them.

Most people are not knowledgeable about what could potentially frighten a horse. I had someone kick a football towards my pony and it narrowly missed his head. I do not expect members of the public to have this knowledge.

Dog owners need to respect others who are using public space. That means if someone asks you to put your dog on a lead to enable them pass safely be that because you are on horse, walking a reactive dog on lead who might not be happy to be approached by another dog, or be a person who is less mobile and might fall over if a dog jumped up or ran around its legs.

Would I expect a dog owner to put their dog on a lead around horses? I would expect the dog owner to have some understanding of how a loose dog could cause an accident and put it on a lead if they were not sure how it would react in a certain situation when other people, horses, livestock, other dogs are close by. However I think a lot of people who get dogs now are very inexperienced and have never had a dog before. It is not like with horses where people learn to ride under supervision and someone teaches them about equine behaviour before they are let loose and become horse owners.

A lot of first time dog owners get no training on how to manage their dog in public places and also the importance of recall and what to do in an emergency situation if unable to recall their dog quickly. I have very low expectations of dog owners and am very wary of any loose dogs.

My pony is used to dogs, he is a new forest and would have encountered them whilst roaming around when he was a stallion, he also used to be kept in a field with a footoath running through it, and our yard rents out dog paddocks and one is right next to the school so he sees dogs playing a lot. However expect if he thought he was going to be attacked he would probably run away.

If I am out riding I will ask people to put dog on lead or hold onto them by the collar when I am passing and I would always just walk until I have made a good distance between dog and myself.

I think maybe this case will be based on negligence as should Max's owner as a responsible dog owner be expected to have known that there would be a risk that he would be unable to recall his dog from the horses or that his dog if it got too close to a horse could cause an accident.

If the answer is yes all dogs owners should be expected to know that dogs can chase and frighten horses then yes the dog should have been recalled and put on a lead when the horses were near.

Should the ride leader have know loose dogs could be a hazard and dog owners are numpties who maybe unable to recall their dogs and therefore taken extra precautions such as asking for dog to be on a lead, or making sure the were far away from the dog before cantering.

I expect what happened was that they realised they were being chased by the dog and everyone pulled up to allow the dog owner to get his dog and dog frightened, surprised or irritated the horse.

Would you also expect there to be a guide at the back and front of the ride so in a scenario where the dog is chasing the horses there is not a client at the back exposed to the dog.