Herne
Well-Known Member
The contrary opinion, of course, being that if you knowingly take an unsafe horse onto the hunting field and intentionally refuse follow the usual protocols for warning third parties, then, if someone else testifies that your horse has been known to kick*, you are likely to be considered to have deliberately and negligently endangered others by so doing.
People who go hunting could be held to have accepted the risk of being kicked, including the risk of riding near red ribbons, thus giving the owner the defense in tort of "Volenti Non Fit Injuria" (the willing canot be injured) which basically translates into "You saw the risk. You took it anyway. Tough luck".
However, if you have nefariously and deliberately failed to advertise that risk, then you would not be able to claim that defense.
Decisions, decisions...
*and you can pretty much bet your shirt that, if your horse has kicked one person and then kicks another, the first person will testify on behalf of the second.
People who go hunting could be held to have accepted the risk of being kicked, including the risk of riding near red ribbons, thus giving the owner the defense in tort of "Volenti Non Fit Injuria" (the willing canot be injured) which basically translates into "You saw the risk. You took it anyway. Tough luck".
However, if you have nefariously and deliberately failed to advertise that risk, then you would not be able to claim that defense.
Decisions, decisions...
*and you can pretty much bet your shirt that, if your horse has kicked one person and then kicks another, the first person will testify on behalf of the second.
Last edited: