Judge rules against compensation for injuries due to falls.

About time a judge sees sense.
We have followed the ridiculous suing culture of the USA, but over there certain sports, riding I believe is one, are exempt from blame due to the fact you are willingly participating in a sport with on occasion, known dangers.
 
Well, she chose to get on the horse. She should accept the risks that were involved.

Even when your ride in an arena, there is no guarantee you won't fall off!
 
Good sense rules for once .
It does not however mean you can be as an owner found responsible , in this case no negligence of the owner caused the injury it was ruled to be because of the inherent risk of riding if a badly cared for bridle had broken I think it would go the other way.
 
Yep. Failing equipment would I agree be a slightly different story. This though is a judge that has acted with common sense and it's about time too.
 
I am pleased to see this, presumably the rider was aware that the horse had not been ridden at canter in the bitless bridle. I do wish that people would not try and see accidents as a means of making money.
 
Mike007 said:
Blimey ,sueing for a few migrane headaches,she should try having a real fall .
Click to expand...

I had a fall off my horse that caused whiplash, this in turn caused migraine. Honestly, unless you've had them, you may not appreciate how debillitating they are.

A broken limb heals, you are stuck with migraines for ever more. I know which one I'd rather any day of the week!

Mind you, had it been somebody else's horse, I wouldn't have dreamt of suing.
 
This decision has nothing to do with common sense but with the application of the law. The, controvercial, Animals Act 1971 imposes strict liability on owners, i.e. the owner is liable no matter what, if the animal has particular characteristics not normally found in the species. What is a particular characteristic not normally found in the species is a very contentious point and has been interpreted differently by different judges. The best thing would be for Parliament to reconsider this law and clarify this really confusing area of legislation.
 
Booboos said:
This decision has nothing to do with common sense but with the application of the law. The, controvercial, Animals Act 1971 imposes strict liability on owners, i.e. the owner is liable no matter what, if the animal has particular characteristics not normally found in the species. What is a particular characteristic not normally found in the species is a very contentious point and has been interpreted differently by different judges. The best thing would be for Parliament to reconsider this law and clarify this really confusing area of legislation.
Click to expand...

Agree with this.

Also agree that it isn't really news and not legally groundbreaking but...it is another case that gives more publicity to the people that see all accidents as a means to money that others really can't be blamed for your own choices.
 
Really all this is another case that increases the case law that says a rider assumes the risk when they get on a horse in opposed to a person walking along who gets knocked down by a horse in that case the owner would be strictly liable even if they had not been negligent in any way .
 
Goldenstar said:
Really all this is another case that increases the case law that says a rider assumes the risk when they get on a horse in opposed to a person walking along who gets knocked down by a horse in that case the owner would be strictly liable even if they had not been negligent in any way .
Click to expand...

What about if you have a horse on loan, you invite someone to ride out on it (whilst you ride your other horse), you withhold specific information about the loan horse from the friend you have invited to ride it (such as you were told not to hack it - which is specified in the loan agreement).

Friend has a life changing accident when horse throws them on the road (more than just migraines).

Who should be liable for damages, if anyone?
 
bouncing_ball said:
What about if you have a horse on loan, you invite someone to ride out on it (whilst you ride your other horse), you withhold specific information about the loan horse from the friend you have invited to ride it (such as you were told not to hack it - which is specified in the loan agreement).

Friend has a life changing accident when horse throws them on the road (more than just migraines).

Who should be liable for damages, if anyone?
Click to expand...

Read the article, it has your answer I think. Not that I'm saying you haven't read the article by the way...just that it does talk about this.
 
Last edited:
At last the judges in these cases seem to be making more sensible decisions, unlike a few years ago when the law was first introduced and led to, it seemed, some innocent horse owners being taken to court and loosing.

But the law still exists, and each case will be decided on its merits, and the one about someone hacking on a horse that the owner had given instructions not to hack is a different case.

When I was riding in the USA there was a big notice in the stable where it said that the State Law was that riding was a possible risky thing to do and by getting on the horse we were accepting the risk.
 
bouncing_ball said:
What about if you have a horse on loan, you invite someone to ride out on it (whilst you ride your other horse), you withhold specific information about the loan horse from the friend you have invited to ride it (such as you were told not to hack it - which is specified in the loan agreement).

Friend has a life changing accident when horse throws them on the road (more than just migraines).

Who should be liable for damages, if anyone?
Click to expand...

A field day for the lawyers Inwould think .
The lawyers for the injured person would probally take a punt at the insursers of both the owner and the loaner .
In a common sense world the loaner is liable they knew the horse was not to be hacked out but they put a third party on the horse to hack.
However if it could be proved that the injured person knew the horse was not to be hacked out and got on anyway it might said they had assumed the risk.
 
I don't think there can ever be a hard and fast ruling that fits every situation in this type of case. It is left to the judge who hears all the facts, possibly over several days with witnesses and evidence.

I was researching a possible purchaser (I'm fussy who buys my ponies!) and found they had been successfully sued when someone came off a horse they owned. They ran a trekking centre and the plaintiff had gone on a trek. Her pony had got behind, then galloped to catch up as one might naturally do. The rider came off and was injured. Held that the trekking centre was to blame for not making sure all the participants kept together and no one was left behind.

There can be no one size fits all in these cases. Once again, "it all depends".
 
So she put a strange bit of tack on a horse, not her own and never been known to bolt before, and tries to canter in the open and she thinks someone else is to blame?? How strange. If the horse was a serial bolter and this had happened before and the owner had deliberately withheld the information then am I right in thinking that would be a whole different kettle of fish?? I ask partly because that actually happened to me although I didn't fall off so it's a bit of a null point :S
 
Not sure how that case even got to court......the horse had never displayed that kind of behaviour, she already knew the horse as she had been riding him and he did what many horses do in an open field anyway. Also, whose idea was it to try cantering in an open field to test out a hackamore? The whole case is absolutely ridiculous and that woman has needlessly put the owner through hell in a case that was never going to pass. As terrible as her migraines must be, this was never going to be a solution.
 
Dry Rot said:
I don't think there can ever be a hard and fast ruling that fits every situation in this type of case. It is left to the judge who hears all the facts, possibly over several days with witnesses and evidence.

I was researching a possible purchaser (I'm fussy who buys my ponies!) and found they had been successfully sued when someone came off a horse they owned. They ran a trekking centre and the plaintiff had gone on a trek. Her pony had got behind, then galloped to catch up as one might naturally do. The rider came off and was injured. Held that the trekking centre was to blame for not making sure all the participants kept together and no one was left behind.

There can be no one size fits all in these cases. Once again, "it all depends".
Click to expand...

Wondering about the possibility of that rider being one of overinflated confidence holding the horse back on purpose to have a canter and ultimately having the horse teach a very important lesson about stupidity?
 
I think this case reiterates how dangerous a bitless bridle can be. Riding in a open field without a bit and cantering for the first time is really not a good idea. I know there are people who swear by bitless bridles, but there is always a risk that the horse gets completely out of control in a way that is far less likely whilst using a bit. Some horses respond well to nose and jaw pressure and some completely ignore it.
 
Agree, not groundbreaking and title of article is misleading:
"Horse riding is dangerous and riders cannot sue when they fall off, judge rules"
This is not the case at all.
This decision hinged on the specifics of the case.
The Animals Act is a nightmare to deal with and many judges struggle either it. Wish they would re-word it, it is so difficult to defend these claims and has left a very unjust situation with owners sued by riders regularly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top