Horse Riding is Dangerous and riders cannot sue ..........

O

Orangehorse

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 November 2005
Messages
14,052
Visit site
Seen in the Daily Telegraph, a judgement that Riding is Dangerous and Riders cannot sue if they fall off.

Very sad for the injured rider, but the judge said that people fall off every day and do not get injured, therefore anyone riding knows that they can fall off and accept that danger when getting on a horse.

A sensible decision.
 
I agree with the judges comments in the article. Its a shame she was injured but she knew the risks of horse riding and it wasn't the owners fault - as a rider you have to accept there will be times when u fall
 
falling off is part of riding. People who ride need to accept that this can and will happen. I could sue the horse, but that would achieve nothing as he qould claim it was my own fault in the first place. I have had many injuries from falling and accept full and total responsibility and would not think of suing anyone.
 
What you get on a horse and then fall off and it's not someone else's fault, you can't blame somebody else, your kidding, disgusting.
 
Phone! If I buy a known rearer & use it to give tiny tot riding lessons I deserve to be sued. But yes, good ruling for 99% of cases
 
A correct decision....................unfortunately we are now in a society where it's considered that accidents don't happen & everything is someones fault. Let's hope this is the start of the end of the 'let's try for some easy money & sue' culture that plagues us now.
 
Every case will be judged on it's merits.

This certainly doesn't set a precedent.

With exception of cases brought under strict liabilty under the Animals Act, most case are judged "sensibly".

Of course riders will be able to continue to sue...
 
Whilst i agree in general, i do hope each case is judged on individual circumstances.
As a rider i know all too well that riding is a dangerous sport, however if i am paying for the use of a horse under instruction and it's not suitable for my level of riding, then the establishment could be negligent.

Ie. Riding schools using horses unsuitable for beginners & novices. It happens, far too often.
That's not identified risk mitigated to as low as possible (risk lessened by suitable ponies), that's negligence.and i dont mean kids slipping off learning to trot and breaking their arm, that is a genuine accident. I mean ponies doing things that is unexpected for a riding school pony, bolting, bucking, rearing, napping, spinnig etc.

There is always the odd few negligent and for this reason, every case should be treated individually.
 
And something eles to consider:

You go to see a horse, is described as well behaved, doesn't buck bolt or rear etc.
It's all lies, horse a nutter and you break your back.
Your house which is your kids home is taken by the bank because you can't pay the mortgage because you can't work, whilst the tw*ts that lied about a dangerous horse are sitting cosy in theirs.

You're not mad, dont think they should pay? Are you really gonna say, oh well horse riding is a dangerous sport...........
 
Welshie Squisher said:
And something eles to consider:

You go to see a horse, is described as well behaved, doesn't buck bolt or rear etc.
It's all lies, horse a nutter and you break your back.
Your house which is your kids home is taken by the bank because you can't pay the mortgage because you can't work, whilst the tw*ts that lied about a dangerous horse are sitting cosy in theirs.

You're not mad, dont think they should pay? Are you really gonna say, oh well horse riding is a dangerous sport...........
Click to expand...

Agree with both your posts. There certainly circumstances where it should be considered.
 
Yes Guylian, and for that reason i hope they continue to judge each case individually.

I don't know which case this post refers to, maybe the woman injured by a known rearer being sold cheap?
In that case the judge was right to say no, when a seller tells u the horse rears and u choose to risk riding it, you are taking a risk and shouldn't then sue the horses owner.
It's people like them that make it difficult for those genuinely hard done to :(
 
In this case, riding a horse she had ridden reguarlaly with no problems, acting completly out of character, it is just one of those things. I think if you turn up to try a horse described as quiet which turns out to be the opposite, it would be a different judgement. I haven't come across the ruling on the woman who was injuredwhen she went to see a horse that was being given away as it was too much for itds current owner anywhere though. Has anyone else?
 
What if you sell your safe calm hack and he does something unpredictable and someone falls off and breaks their back?

Anyway of course anyone can sue anyone for anything they like. Lawyers love the litigious :) of course you may lose unless their is negligence.
 
zaminda this is the earlier case being discused:
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=521840

The whole point about negligence is that you need to know the details of the individual case so I don't think it is possible to say that riders should NEVER sue or that they should ALWAYS sue if they fall off and get injured. Are there more details on the case reported in the Telegraph.
 
Welshie Squisher said:
Whilst i agree in general, i do hope each case is judged on individual circumstances.
As a rider i know all too well that riding is a dangerous sport, however if i am paying for the use of a horse under instruction and it's not suitable for my level of riding, then the establishment could be negligent.

Ie. Riding schools using horses unsuitable for beginners & novices. It happens, far too often.
That's not identified risk mitigated to as low as possible (risk lessened by suitable ponies), that's negligence.and i dont mean kids slipping off learning to trot and breaking their arm, that is a genuine accident. I mean ponies doing things that is unexpected for a riding school pony, bolting, bucking, rearing, napping, spinnig etc.

There is always the odd few negligent and for this reason, every case should be treated individually.
Click to expand...

Agree with this
 
Had a case with one of the hunt horses always got the huntsman off bucking etc doesnt have a bad bone its its body though lovely horse i think it needed its back looking at. They got someone else to ride it and she fell of and said she was going to sue the hunt for everything she could get i dont think she would get any where she knew what the horse was like and was prepared to ride it !
 
Welshie Squisher said:
Whilst i agree in general, i do hope each case is judged on individual circumstances.
As a rider i know all too well that riding is a dangerous sport, however if i am paying for the use of a horse under instruction and it's not suitable for my level of riding, then the establishment could be negligent.

Ie. Riding schools using horses unsuitable for beginners & novices. It happens, far too often.
That's not identified risk mitigated to as low as possible (risk lessened by suitable ponies), that's negligence.and i dont mean kids slipping off learning to trot and breaking their arm, that is a genuine accident. I mean ponies doing things that is unexpected for a riding school pony, bolting, bucking, rearing, napping, spinnig etc.

There is always the odd few negligent and for this reason, every case should be treated individually.
Click to expand...

MILLGREENLADY said:
Had a case with one of the hunt horses always got the huntsman off bucking etc doesnt have a bad bone its its body though lovely horse i think it needed its back looking at. They got someone else to ride it and she fell of and said she was going to sue the hunt for everything she could get i dont think she would get any where she knew what the horse was like and was prepared to ride it !
Click to expand...

If she made an informed choice to get on the horse full in the knowledge of its recent behaviour, i agree she hasnt a leg to stand on in making a claim.
 
TBH that statement is far too black and white. It all depends on the circumstances and whether there was any neglegence. I sued when i got injured. But it was a work incident and a lot different to that.
 
Horses behaviour cannot be guaranteed. Even the easiest, sleepiest animal on the planet could well have its day. Under nornal circumstances it is at the riders risk.

I agree that the exceptions would be if a rider was put on a horse, when they did not know that there was a pattern of behaviour i.e horse known to buck etc but god knows how you can prove that.

Interesting comment about the work riders though. There is a higher likelihood of damage and then said rider could no longer earn their living. ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top