Interesting. Horse riding and legal claims.

[dressagelove]

I am dong a Wildlife and the Law Module at uni, and this morning I am hunting online for Case Law applying to my assignment

I am quite shocked at how may pieces of law are there about horse riders and them trying to claim against the owner / rider / riding school. Funnily enough, I only skim read them, but most appear to go in the horse owner's favour, as long as the horse is well cared for and as long as reasonable precautions have been taken, it is the other person's choice having voluntarily participated with horses.

I can't help wonder then, why people do claim. Some beginners who have never been around horses and are a bit naive on dangers horses potentially pose, could be forgiven in thinking there is a claim there? When in fact, do they just not realise that animals have their own mind and it was our decision to go for it anyway?

If all steps are in place for riding schools, WHY do they get such a hard time with people claiming against them? Surely the claimers don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the actual legislation. Does anyone know of incidents when the riding school HAS been responsible for something happening, and why?

 

[indiat]

The problem seems to be that most insurance companies do not want to fight claims, preferring instead to settle and pass the costs onto their customers in the form of raised insurance premiums. Our YO was sued a few years ago by an experienced rider who fell off a horse on a trek when it spooked in a field. She got back on and finished the ride but a few days later my YO had a letter from her stating she had whiplash and the animal was unsuitable to be ridden. She got thousands on a payout, which made my YO angry but her insurance company would not support her in fighting the claim. The animal is still being used for trekking (no further accidents) and she acutally tried to book a ride a week after getting her claim and was most surprised when her business was declined! People seem to think these days that an accident should always be someone elses fault and they should make a profit from it. And it doesn't hurt anyone does it, when you are claiming on insurance? Yeah, right! A dog belonging to a friend of mine got loose a couple of months back and was hit by a car. The driver stopped and called the police and got the dog to a vet where it had surgery that saved its life. My friend rang me and asked if she could claim the vet's bills on the driver's insurance! As you can tell, this attitude makes me angry. I am all for people claiming compensation when they have been hurt as a result of someone else's negligence. But too many people are claiming out of greed. Our local park faced a compensation claim from a grandmother who despite signs saying swings were for children only and being rather overweight, decided to stand on a swing and swing as high as she could and she fell off. She tried suing because the swings moved on their supports and she claimed they were dangerous and so resulted in her accident! Luckily, it didn't get far. I have a cousin who seems to think a fender bender is a chance for her to get money together for a holiday. Everyone is suing because it seems like easy money and insurance companies are hitting their customers for it. We no longer allow anyone to ride our animals anymore even though they are sweet natured novice rides because I don't want a claim being brought against my only asset, my home, and often when they can't get you they go after your YO and she doesn't need the grief either. Its a shame as I depended on people giving me the odd ride when I was a kid but its not worth it anymore. My boys have third party liability insurance through the BHS but being sued when you have given someone else permission to ride your horse is such a grey area that I don't allow it anymore.

 

[maresmaid]

"Did you have an accident that wasn't your fault?" - a phrase heard all too often on the TV nowadays - I even get texts on my mobile telling me that I can claim thousands in compensation for the recent accident I've had (I never had a recent accident at all!). This culture is fostered by the legal proffession who have thrown commonsense out the window, and are manipulating the law - and the public into thinking that we have a god given right to be safe at ALL times and in ALL circumstances, they dangle huge sums of money in front of people as an incentive to take action & people just get sucked in, motivated I think by pure greed. The reality is that the world is a dangerous place, & accidents happen, and it's about time that people took responsibilty for their own decisions. Having said that I do aknowledge that there are times when there truly is a good reason to make a claim and I would not criticise anyone for taking action in genuine circumstances, as that is exactly what insurance is there for - but not to be considered as a "windfall" when things don't go quite as planned.

 

[RunToEarth]

In my experience there are much fewer cases won by people who claim. I'm sure to receive compensation you have to prove the owner neiglient, which, where horses are concerned is extremely difficult, they are a huge unknown quantity.
It won't stop people claiming on a "no win no fee" basis, because we live in this American sue culture, but if a duty of care has taken place on the owner's part (ie warning them that horses will be...horses) then there can be no pay out.

 

[Naryafluffy]

Never been in that situation or heard of someone being sued/claimed against with regards to horses, however you have to wonder is this the reason there seems to be an increase in the number of horse owners who don't really have a clue, when i was a kid, you could help round the local riding school, mucking out, getting horse's ready etc, but now a days they are probably so wrapped up in red tape around health and safety kids aren't allowed to help anymore in case something happens, then when they do get their own horses they just haven't get the necessary on the ground experience.
On another note quite a few years ago i went to ireland to work for 4 months, couldn't deal with not being round horses for that length of time, so found a local riding school and paid for lessons, I had to sign a disclaimer on the first visit that basically said I understood that the horses had a mind of their own and this was classed as a high risk sport due to accidents that could happen, does this still happen at riding schools or just the one I went to in Ireland?

 

[Mithras]

I am dong a Wildlife and the Law Module at uni, and this morning I am hunting online for Case Law applying to my assignment

I am quite shocked at how may pieces of law are there about horse riders and them trying to claim against the owner / rider / riding school. Funnily enough, I only skim read them, but most appear to go in the horse owner's favour, as long as the horse is well cared for and as long as reasonable precautions have been taken, it is the other person's choice having voluntarily participated with horses.

If all steps are in place for riding schools, WHY do they get such a hard time with people claiming against them? Surely the claimers don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the actual legislation. Does anyone know of incidents when the riding school HAS been responsible for something happening, and why?

I would hope that studying this topic at university would provide you with the answers to these question!

First of all, you need to know the difference between legislation and case law, as apart from the strict liability of the Animals Act and Occupiers Liability, the law in this area is mainly case law based common law of tort. Recognised torts include negligence, where the Plaintiff (claimant) will be required to establish the existence of a duty of care, breach of that duty of care and a causal link between the two. Liability may be avoided if any defences apply, such as voluntary assumption of risk or contributory negligence, as you mention above.

From a more practical viewpoing, insurance companies have a lot to answer for. There are a lot of people working for them who do not really understand the law but make decisions to settle cases where a full court case might not find liability. Hence the threat of sueing becomes in some people's eyes, all consuming, whereas the actual court decision might not produce the result that they fear.

There are I think a couple of cases where riding schools have been found liable, but (a) I am outwith your jurisdiction and (b) I am not going to do your assignement work for you!

btw your lecturer at uni really should have directed you towards researching formal legal sources, such as recognised online case reports eg Lexis or Westlaw, or leading legal textbooks. Please don't attribute to Wikipeadia, its not academically acceptable!

 

[indiat]

Such a contract is a legal requirement or at least one demanded by insurance companies. Doesn't stop people from trying it on though!

 

[dressagelove]

I would hope that studying this topic at university would provide you with the answers to these question!

First of all, you need to know the difference between legislation and case law, as apart from the strict liability of the Animals Act and Occupiers Liability, the law in this area is mainly case law based common law of tort. Recognised torts include negligence, where the Plaintiff (claimant) will be required to establish the existence of a duty of care, breach of that duty of care and a causal link between the two. Liability may be avoided if any defences apply, such as voluntary assumption of risk or contributory negligence, as you mention above.

From a more practical viewpoing, insurance companies have a lot to answer for. There are a lot of people working for them who do not really understand the law but make decisions to settle cases where a full court case might not find liability. Hence the threat of sueing becomes in some people's eyes, all consuming, whereas the actual court decision might not produce the result that they fear.

There are I think a couple of cases where riding schools have been found liable, but (a) I am outwith your jurisdiction and (b) I am not going to do your assignement work for you!

btw your lecturer at uni really should have directed you towards researching formal legal sources, such as recognised online case reports eg Lexis or Westlaw, or leading legal textbooks. Please don't attribute to Wikipeadia, its not academically acceptable!

Lol i am very confused! I'm not even doing my assignment on horses and law, I am doing it on badgers I was just posting on here, as it got me thinking and I thought it was an interesting topic. Also, I don't think I mentioned wikipedia once, lol, I am infact using Lawtel to find my case law, thanks for the tips though

I think it is the culture we live in, and actually, I don't think it is bad as people make out now, though I could be wrong. The number of cases I read this morning anyway have proved that many of the end is dismissed because people participate at their own risk in any case. It just seems silly that people go for all these claims when they haven't any proof to back it all up :S

 

[PonyIAmNotFood]

It's utterly ridiculous the blame and claim attitude in this country. I was on crutches for 6 weeks after a riding accident on someone elses horse and was a magnet for the claim leeches. They practically drooled when I said i'd done it on someone elses horse but were bitterly disappointed when I made it perfectly clear I wasn't going to try and claim.

Riding schools do have a disclaimer and contract in place before you ride at most places now, just in case idiots decide to take any excuse to sue.

 

[JFTDWS]

Lol i am very confused! I'm not even doing my assignment on horses and law, I am doing it on badgers I was just posting on here, as it got me thinking and I thought it was an interesting topic. Also, I don't think I mentioned wikipedia once, lol, I am infact using Lawtel to find my case law, thanks for the tips though

I think it is the culture we live in, and actually, I don't think it is bad as people make out now, though I could be wrong. The number of cases I read this morning anyway have proved that many of the end is dismissed because people participate at their own risk in any case. It just seems silly that people go for all these claims when they haven't any proof to back it all up :S

I was just wondering since when have horses been classed as wildlife I'm imagining you're doing a degree in some form of animal or agricultural science rather than law? I'm curious as to your assignment regarding badgers - do share? Is this culling relating? I'm not a legal person, but I am interested in badgers and TB (I'm a little too interested in the latter).

On your original point:
I don't know whether the actual risk of being (successfully) sued correlates with the fear of being sued. I see a lot of measures taken to prevent people suing (e.g.) riding schools - no helpers etc - but as you say, there have been relatively few successful claims to my knowledge. I know (believe?) insurance companies play a huge role in this - laying down rules and hiking their premiums. I don't know whether this truly reflects the public attitude - I certainly hope that most people I know aren't that motivated by greed. But what would I know?

 

[merry mischief]

Lol i am very confused! I'm not even doing my assignment on horses and law, I am doing it on badgers

i love this!!!! there's always a sniffy person who tries to show you up with exactly how much more than you they know, and this has got to have been the worlds best comeback!

 

[JFTDWS]

i love this!!!! there's always a sniffy person who tries to show you up with exactly how much more than you they know, and this has got to have been the worlds best comeback!

If Mithras was trying to be sniffy, she should have proof read her post for typos I can understand the response - if the OP is a law student, you'd have higher expectations of legal accuracy in her post (or rather, not asking questions which would be covered comprehensively in the course). If the OP is a law student, don't mind me, I'm not a law person so don't know anything - I'm theorising wildly. I am, however, a scientist, and I get very wound up and post aggressively at people who are studying (or I mistakenly believe are studying) sciences and post in a manner I deem to be unscientific or lacking in scientific rigour. The point about wikipaedia is a very good one, even though the OP never mentioned it (I presume Mithras is just giving some random but extremely good advice?).

I have no idea why I'm posting, this has nothing to do with me

 

[dressagelove]

I was just wondering since when have horses been classed as wildlife I'm imagining you're doing a degree in some form of animal or agricultural science rather than law? I'm curious as to your assignment regarding badgers - do share? Is this culling relating? I'm not a legal person, but I am interested in badgers and TB (I'm a little too interested in the latter).

I feel we have gotton a little off topic but neverind haha, I am in fact studying Environmental Management, in final year, and am taking Wildlife and conservation law as one of my chosen modules this year (you don't have to pick it, its a choice). I am not particularly hot on law lol, but am doing an assignment on a case study about this man who has been arrested in the vicinity of a badger's set with a spade and dogs, is he breaking a law? Its quite interesting actually, hence why I picked this module As far as law goes though, no, I'm not studying law, so that's probably why I sound like a dunce

 

[JanetGeorge]

I am not particularly hot on law lol, but am doing an assignment on a case study about this man who has been arrested in the vicinity of a badger's set with a spade and dogs, is he breaking a law?

Well to answer that you'd need answers to a few questions:

1. Did he have the landowner's consent to control foxes on the land for the purposes of protecting gamebirds (lambs or poultry aren't entitled to be protected by this form of fox control.)
2. Had the badger set been dug or disturbed.

If he didn't have permission to control foxes then he's be on a sticky wicket but I believe there would have to be evidence that the badger sett HAD been disturbed, and evidence that this person was responsible for the disturbance! (Though one has to say that if the RSPCA takes a case with bu**er all evidence, Magistrates almost always convict!)

 

[JFTDWS]

I feel we have gotton a little off topic but neverind haha, I am in fact studying Environmental Management, in final year, and am taking Wildlife and conservation law as one of my chosen modules this year (you don't have to pick it, its a choice). I am not particularly hot on law lol, but am doing an assignment on a case study about this man who has been arrested in the vicinity of a badger's set with a spade and dogs, is he breaking a law? Its quite interesting actually, hence why I picked this module As far as law goes though, no, I'm not studying law, so that's probably why I sound like a dunce

Interesting. I saw badgers and leapt to TB, so I was thinking down those routes. It's an interesting question though, which I can't really comment on, since I'm also not a legal person and that sort of question is very out of my field of knowledge But thanks for answering my questions.

You don't sound like a dunce, I just meant you didn't sound as though you knew the law as well as a law student (probably because you aren't one )

 

[a_e_d]

As someone who works in claims, I think many claimants probably don't initially plan to claim, but someone plants the seed. Believe it it not, there are still such things as accidents where compensation isn't awarded. Loads of claims get denied but you never hear of those as they don't get as far as court.
You have to remember though that evidence is needed to support a denial of liability and if a riding school isn't perhaps as good as they could be in terms of record keeping etc. it makes the job of the insurer that much more difficult.
I accept that insurance companies aren't always as good as they can be, but I think they are an easy target. As part of my job I audit other insurance companies and yes there are occasions where they roll over too easily, but the majority of the time their decisions are reasonable. There are however some companies I would avoid
I should perhaps add that I deal with high value, complex losses where perhaps a higher calibre of claims staff is to be expected.
To be honest I have more of a gripe about the level of damages awarded than the liability decision made. I hold my hands up to this one ... it is often the insurer not managing expectations and not keeping a hold on quantum / care regimes etc.

 

[JFTDWS]

To be honest I have more of a gripe about the level of damages awarded than the liability decision made. I hold my hands up to this one ... it is often the insurer not managing expectations and not keeping a hold on quantum / care regimes etc.

I'm familiar with quantum physics, but I have no idea what you mean in this instance - care to provide a translation for the uneducated over here?

 

[a_e_d]

I'm familiar with quantum physics, but I have no idea what you mean in this instance - care to provide a translation for the uneducated over here?

I was hoping that I could confuse people into agreeing with me

Quantum is the value of the claim... what the injury itself is worth and also the costs you incur as a result of the claim/loss/incident.

For personal injury claims if the person is seriously injured and needs care / help to survive we are seeing care costs alone coming in at £200,000 per year. On top of this is loss of earnings, accommodation etc. etc.

I am not saying people don't deserve to be looked after, but it never stops surprising me how demanding people can be. there are quite clearly people taking the mick and unfortunately some insurers let them get away with it.

 

[SonnysHumanSlave]

I got thrown off by a bucker at the riding school and broke my wrist. I didn't sue... I just got a cast and got back on the pony the next day and competed on him. Lol.

I do know of another lady who did fall and sued the riding school and won. Although don't know the details of the case.