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

[Gallop_Away]

Time will tell but I suspect a judge won't view the picture as so black and white. It's certainly a case I'll be following with great interest.

 

[criso]

In terms of the court case, would this be decided by a jury? In which case the fine points of control and legal responsibility are less important than who the jury sympathises with. And they may well side with the little fluffy white dog who just ran up out of "a sense of fun" and probably just wanted to play.

 

[Gallop_Away]

This is a civil case which in the UK is decided by a judge. Juries are only usually used for criminal cases here. So the outcome of this case will be decided by a judge.

 

[honetpot]

I’m pretty sure he would have to have signed a disclaimer at the riding school before he went out on the hack. As for the dog, I agree it should have been on a lead as it acted in an ‘out of control’ manner.

I do not think you can sign your legal rights away, the disclaimer should only make sure you realise there are risks, not to absolve the person providing the service from trying to prevent harm. You would expect your driving instructor to keep you safe, have qualifications and proper insurance, not say if you drive you could have an accident and it would never be my fault.

 

[criso]

This is a civil case which in the UK is decided by a judge. Juries are only usually used for criminal cases here. So the outcome of this case will be decided by a judge.

Thanks, it just struck me that i didn't know and it wasn't clear from the report.

 

[Keith_Beef]

Do we know the dog meant harm? All we know is that the dog ran under the horse. There seems
to be a great deal of speculation going on here.

You're absolutely right that there's a lot of speculation going on, because we don't have access to all the information that will be presented during the case

But I don't think that "Do we know the dog meant harm?" is really relevant. I don't believe that we can ever truly know the intention of an animal in circumstances like these. Moreover, if we try to compare this incident to an assault by one human on another, the intent of the former is secondary to the threat perceived by the latter.

 

[Gallop_Away]

You're absolutely right that there's a lot of speculation going on, because we don't have access to all the information that will be presented during the case

But "Do we know the dog meant harm?" I'd not really relevant. I don't believe that we can ever truly know the intention of an animal in circumstances like these. Moreover, of we try to compare this incident to an assault by one human on another, the intent of the former is secondary to the that perceived by the latter.

Fair comment but my comment that you have quoted was in response to someone who suggested the horse who was arguably dog proof felt threatened by this particular dog as a horse can tell the difference between a dog on the yard, and a dog that means it harm, or words to that effect. My reply was that we cannot know the dog meant harm from the simple fact that it ran under the horse's legs.
I wasn't suggesting the intentions of the dog are relevant exactly, only that we can not know the dogs intention from the fact that it ran under the horse, and therefore to assume the horse only reacted to this dog because it felt the dog meant it harm is pure speculation.

 

[Fred66]

This article appears to give a more holistic view of the incident and is why the case may not be clear cut.
https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/20150969.horse-rider-injured-druidston-beach-sues-5-million/
Whilst the dog owner might be held liable (either wholly or partially) it throws some doubt on the actual cause.

How close did the dog get, was it chasing, did the rider who was thrown halt his horse because he saw the dog approaching , was it the being stopped from following the other horses the reason it bucked (not unreasonable in trekking type horses that are used to being together).

Was the dog dangerously out of control? It is not classed as a dangerous breed so would not necessarily have to be under such close control as one that is. It hadn’t chased the horses on the first canter so it’s owner did not believe that it would chase them on the second time.

Very sad for the gentleman that had the accident but it certainly shows the value of having personal accident insurance.

 

[ycbm]

Very sad for the gentleman that had the accident but it certainly shows the value of having personal accident insurance.

I don't know anyone who can afford personal accident insurance which would make a meaningful, life enhancing payout for loss of the use of your legs.
.

 

[Fred66]

I don't know anyone who can afford personal accident insurance which would make a meaningful, life enhancing payout for loss of the use of your legs.
.

There is no money that compensate for the emotional aspect, but for the additional costs incurred regarding alterations to your home, care staff, physio, loss of earnings etc then a value for this can be determined, presumably why he is suing for money.

 

[criso]

This article appears to give a more holistic view of the incident and is why the case may not be clear cut.
https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/20150969.horse-rider-injured-druidston-beach-sues-5-million/
Whilst the dog owner might be held liable (either wholly or partially) it throws some doubt on the actual cause.

How close did the dog get, was it chasing, did the rider who was thrown halt his horse because he saw the dog approaching , was it the being stopped from following the other horses the reason it bucked (not unreasonable in trekking type horses that are used to being together).

Was the dog dangerously out of control? It is not classed as a dangerous breed so would not necessarily have to be under such close control as one that is. It hadn’t chased the horses on the first canter so it’s owner did not believe that it would chase them on the second time.

Very sad for the gentleman that had the accident but it certainly shows the value of having personal accident insurance.

That gives a bit more detail and clarifies that all the horses stopped


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."

It also says

Max was not disobedient or out of control."

Not sure that running after horses and ending up under their legs counts as under control unless that is what the owner intended.

 

[honetpot]

I think all they have to prove is, if the dog wasn't there was the incident likely to have happened and did the owner have control, they have to prove negligence, but they may not have enough money or insurance to pay the full amount of damages.
'Out of control

Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
injures someone
makes someone worried that it might injure them
A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if either of the following apply:
it attacks someone’s animal
the owner of an animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal'
https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public

I think suing the company who organised the ride, who should have about 10million in insurance is just a way of covering if they are awarded damages they should be able to pay, although the insurance company will try and push the liability on to the dog owner.

 

[Fred66]

That gives a bit more detail and clarifies that all the horses stopped


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."

It also says

Max was not disobedient or out of control."

Not sure that running after horses and ending up under their legs counts as under control unless that is what the owner intended.

It actually says that the horses had moved off to start their second canter but that his horse was stationery. The dog started to run towards them it doesn’t say from how far away and there is differing views on whether it barked.
I am not advocating for a dangerous dog just pointing out that this case is not clear cut.

Regarding the link to the govt website it says that your dog must not be out of control in your own home, which is semi laughable as puppies don’t pop out fully trained. Also regarding whether a dog is a danger would be what a reasonable person would think posed a risk, so a large Rottweiler running at you would be far more likely to give concern than a jack russell.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

Just a musing- if a dog slips it’s lead/pulls it’s owner over or gets away and causes an accident, could the owner still be responsible coz it was out of control in a public place? Even if the dog got away, rather than being let off.
But if a rider falls off a horse and it bolts and causes an accident, provided they have insurance, I assume they are in no way responsible?

Having insurance doesn't absolve you of responsibility, it just means any financial compensation is paid by the underwriters.

 

[AmyMay]

The fact remains that the dog ran at the horse(s) and was not under control.

 

[bonny]

So much speculation on this thread! I hope some of you never find yourself on a jury.

 

[criso]

It actually says that the horses had moved off to start their second canter but that his horse was stationery. The dog started to run towards them it doesn’t say from how far away and there is differing views on whether it barked.
I am not advocating for a dangerous dog just pointing out that this case is not clear cut.

.

It doesn't say that Bonfire was the only horse stationary, it's just saying that he wasn't moving when the dog ran up.

But they do elaborate further down.


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."

That is a quote from the dog owner's solicitor.

In a sense he's right in that if they'd all carried on cantering, the dog may not have kept up and the accident may not have happened but I think most people would pull up in those circumstances as the safer thing to do in theory.

 

[ester]

It kind of highlights that hat cams (equivalent) would be useful on beaches etc as much as they are roads.

 

[Fred66]

It doesn't say that Bonfire was the only horse stationary, it's just saying that he wasn't moving when the dog ran up.

But they do elaborate further down.


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."

That is a quote from the dog owner's solicitor.

In a sense he's right in that if they'd all carried on cantering, the dog may not have kept up and the accident may not have happened but I think most people would pull up in those circumstances as the safer thing to do in theory.

That could be taken as the others cantered on and stopped WHEN the claimant lost control, ie they only stopped when they realised there was a problem. There is no jury so this will be down to how the judge assesses the evidence and apportions responsibility. Not hearing all the evidence we don’t know we can only speculate on what is in the press, and what what might still to be presented

 

[Fred66]

The fact remains that the dog ran at the horse(s) and was not under control.

Or his owner seeing that they had started to canter and knowing that a 14yr old Westie had about as much chance of catching them as flying to the moon didn’t immediately recall him. It might not have occurred to him that one would stop, he may have recalled it as soon as he did. Obviously the gentleman who is injured is going to have a different version. Not all the evidence is in the press so I am not judging either way, I’ll wait until the verdict

 

[criso]

I wouldn't take it like that

Saying the accident happened because the group stopped puts the group stopping before the incident and even tried to suggest their stopping caused it.

Not that the accident happened and then the riders stopped.

However the judge will have the advantage on us in that they can ask for clarification.

 

[SilverLinings]

Regarding the link to the govt website it says that your dog must not be out of control in your own home, which is semi laughable as puppies don’t pop out fully trained.

I suspect that wording in the Act is in response to the number of children (and also adults) who have been killed or seriously injured by dogs in a domestic house. It means that the owner of the dog has to take responsibility to keep others in the home (or visiting) safe, and is possibly intended to deter people from keeping known dangerous dogs alive and as pets because they think it's ok as the dog never goes outside.

 

[Fred66]

I suspect that wording in the Act is in response to the number of children (and also adults) who have been killed or seriously injured by dogs in a domestic house. It means that the owner of the dog has to take responsibility to keep others in the home (or visiting) safe, and is possibly intended to deter people from keeping known dangerous dogs alive and as pets because they think it's ok as the dog never goes outside.

I’m sure the intent is to ensure just that but the wording is such that you should be in control of your dog at all times which is not practicable, and therefore not a particularly well written law. I’m in bed at the moment the dogs are all sleeping downstairs and I have absolutely no control over them so in theory I’m breaking the law.

 

[Keith_Beef]

I’m sure the intent is to ensure just that but the wording is such that you should be in control of your dog at all times which is not practicable, and therefore not a particularly well written law. I’m in bed at the moment the dogs are all sleeping downstairs and I have absolutely no control over them so in theory I’m breaking the law.

You might, technically, be breaking the law.

But if your dogs are not able to cause a nuisance to anybody else, then there really is no reason to take action against you.

 

[ponynutz]

Or his owner seeing that they had started to canter and knowing that a 14yr old Westie had about as much chance of catching them as flying to the moon didn’t immediately recall him. It might not have occurred to him that one would stop, he may have recalled it as soon as he did. Obviously the gentleman who is injured is going to have a different version. Not all the evidence is in the press so I am not judging either way, I’ll wait until the verdict

True. But seeing as it's been taken to court I doubt this will be a very strong argument. It still implies a certain degree of blame whether it was intentional or not.

 

[Tiddlypom]

The devil will be in the fine detail as heard in court this case, as in all court cases. This representation from the defence barrister is key, however.

For Mr Thomas, barrister Andrew Arentsen said there was no reason why Max should have been on his lead, since Druidston beach is regularly used by dog walkers to exercise their pets freely.

"It is precisely the type of location where dog owners can reasonably allow their dogs to run without restraint," he said.

So what is 'without restraint'? Off lead, for sure, as that is apparently permitted on that beach, but it should never mean 'not under control'.

 

[lamlyn2012]

The devil will be in the fine detail as heard in court this case, as in all court cases. This representation from the defence barrister is key, however.

For Mr Thomas, barrister Andrew Arentsen said there was no reason why Max should have been on his lead, since Druidston beach is regularly used by dog walkers to exercise their pets freely.

"It is precisely the type of location where dog owners can reasonably allow their dogs to run without restraint," he said.

But surely a dog should only be off lead if it safe to do that. Even if dogs are allowed off lead the owner needs to decide if it is safe to allow this.
Where there is a group of horses close by, given that the dog has previously shown an interest in the horses, in my opinion the dog owner should have taken steps to control his dog.
There are many places dogs are allowed off lead but a responsible owner will restrain their dog when horses are in the vicinity. This owner clearly didn't.
If this argument stands up I personally think it will set the wrong precedent.
It's like saying if a road speed limit is set at 50mph it doesn't necessarily mean it's safe to travel at 50. You have to make a judgement

 

[Tiddlypom]

But surely a dog should only be off lead if it safe to do that. Even if dogs are allowed off lead the owner needs to decide if it is safe to allow this.
Where there is a group of horses close by, given that the dog has previously shown an interest in the horses, in my opinion the dog owner should have taken steps to control his dog.
There are many places dogs are allowed off lead but a responsible owner will restrain their dog when horses are in the vicinity. This owner clearly didn't.
If this argument stands up I personally think it will set the wrong precedent.
It's like saying if a road speed limit is set at 50mph it doesn't necessarily mean it's safe to travel at 50. You have to make a judgement

Oh yes, I fully agree.

But the defence is trying to use the fact that dogs are allowed off lead on that particular beach to weasel out of the owner's responsibility to still have control of and recall of his dog if necessary.

 

[AmyMay]

Oh yes, I fully agree.

But the defence is trying to use the fact that dogs are allowed off lead on that particular beach to weasel out of the owner's responsibility to still have control of and recall of his dog if necessary.

Which of course is nonsense. Had it been a child, it would have been ‘it’s a fair cop, guv’.

 

[fiwen30]

Interesting that the dog owner’s lawyer states that the dog was obedient, and would ‘return when called’. Surely that’s admitting that the owner allowed the dog to chase the group, if it would have returned to him if he’d called it?