liability after road accident

S

seriesII

New User
Joined
18 April 2007
Messages
5
Visit site
My daughter was recently struck by a car while out hacking. Fortunately she and the horse were unhurt but the car suffered some damage. The car driver is now looking to recover all his costs from us which could be a problem as horse and rider were not insured. I appreciate it was a mistake to be on the road without insurance. Question is, as it was the car drivers fault, what liability do we have?
 
As you weren't insured, I'd try to settle things now by paying him, as you may find yourself in a bit of hassle if you have to go to court...
 
if it was his fault then he cannot claim against you.i have rider insurance with bhs pay for it online and coverd within ten mins its worth doing and very good benifits as you are a gold member,worth doing !
 
[ QUOTE ]
if it was his fault then he cannot claim against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont really know the ins and outs, but if this is the case they might be in for a hard time. After all it is very hard to prove who was at fault.

Im glad to hear the horse was ok, but you may find yourself in a bit of bother over this! Sorry i wasn't much help, but i hope it turns out well!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Question is, as it was the car drivers fault, what liability do we have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have the police decided that it was the drivers fault?
 
The first thing to do is to report it to the police and ask for an incident number.

Please also complete a BHS accident form available on http:/www.bhs.org.uk/Content/accident-report-form.asp

If the driver tries to claim from you then instruct a specialist equine solicitor to act on your behalf.
www.equine-law.net
www.wandb.co.uk
www.arnoldthomson.com

Joint the bhs and get free third party cover up to £10,000,000
 
Please explain to me how it was your daughters fault - man in metal casing hits animal.

I would follow Peter Natts advice but would also start suggesting that your daughter is distraught and suffering since the accident and you will be seeking legal advice - It sounds like you have been too nice - I know if anyone hit my horse they would not be left standing and the car would not have a smooth panel left on it.
 
I've been involved in two road accidents involving my horses - one very serious, and the law seems very odd regarding this scenario.
The serious accident happened 6 years ago. I was riding my utterly bomb-proof mare home from hacking. We were on a slight incline when a car drove straight into the back of us. I was uninjured but my beautiful, gorgeous mare had to be destroyed from her injuries. The vet that attended tried bless him but it was pretty obvious to me from the start that she would never get up again. The woman driving the car said the sun was in her eyes and she simply didn't see us. The police decided it was just a terrible accident and didn't press any charges. But surely this woman was driving extremely carelessly? If she couldn't see 15.2hh of horse at the side of the road then she wouldn't of seen a cyclist or pedestrian either and if she'd hit them the way she hit me (at speed - we went over the roof of her car and totalled it) she'd of killed them. The general consensus from the police was its just a horse therefore it doesn't matter.
On a monetary level it left me out of pocket because even though she was insured there was the excess, they wouldn't pay for the euthanasia and disposal or for any of the damaged tack even though that was on the policy too. I had to buy a new horse - even to get one at a similar level to what I was doing at the time was more expensive, needed new tack etc. In the end I had to persue the driver privately to recoup some of this which was distressing and drawn out but was the only way I could feel that she had been punished in some small way - although I expect her insurance company were the ones that paid.
In my second accident - fortunately far less serious - but more my fault, I was riding out my new horse, a car passed us very closely spraying water from a puddle all over us. The horse actually didn't react to this at all, but when a 2nd car came - and all respect to this woman she slowed right down, as soon as my mare heard the ssshhh sound of the water she jumped into the middle of the road and knocked the woman's wing mirror off. I felt awful - partly because the noise we made on impact was exactly like the noise when the car hit us in the previous accident and it gave me a hideous flash back and partly because this driver really didn't do anything wrong and was paying the price of the previous inconsiderate driver.
At the time the only insurance I had was the BHS 3rd party insurance - I stupidly assured the driver that that would cover it. Nothing happened. I gave all the details to the insurance company and basically they said horses act unpredicatably and therefore it wasn't my fault (unless I'd known that the horse was a serial spooker....) I felt bad for the driver and really wish I'd just offered to pay for her wing mirror as she really didn't do anything wrong and I felt it was unfair that she was left out of pocket.
I just felt in both my experiences the law worked the wrong way round. Needless to say I no longer ride on the roads.
 
I think the law has now changed since ann-jen's case, but I'm sure someone more knowledgeable (Puppy!) can clarify.

Many years ago I was involved in a road accident too - wasn't simple to apportion blame as the horse spooked into the road but the car was travelling too close as well. Horse was OK but I broke my ribs badly. Car driver tried to claim damages for her dented bonnet, but insurance company claimed that as horses are unpredictable animals the driver needed to prove I was actually negligent, which I wasn't. So she wasn't able to pursue her claim.

However, I've since seen in horse magazines that a court case occured which set a legal precedent. Some horses escaped from a field due to vandalism and damaged a car (and I think might have injured car occupants) and the judge ruled that the owners should be liable even though there were not negligent.
 
I know that you should fight this, but in my experience I would say settle with him now.
I had a bad rta this year (6 months ago), just me and another car. Both cars were written off. I was completly faultless in the fact that I had right of way and was driving within the limit, car pulled out into my path and there was nothing I could do whatsoever. Police wanted to prosecute her at the time. Police have now lost the witness statements so cannot take any further action. Insurance is under dispute cause she and her company are trying to deny liability. Therefor I am out of pocket, and the lady that in a traffic cops eyes should have been prosecuted has walked away scott free. Very annoying. I would just get it all cleared up asap. Dont get me wrong - had you have had insurance I would say fight it all the way - but as you havent I would just get it settled
 
I would echo PeterN advice but don't just lie down and accept this.
There are an awful lot of litigation companies out there and much as I loathe what they do, in this case use them to your advantage.
They will take over the case and write to the car driver telling him he is going to get sued for damage to horse, rider's confidence etc, and with any luck he will run for the hills. if not they work on a no win no fee basis provided you have a case, or they ask you to take out an insurance to cover court fees.
My son was knocked off his bike in leeds and badly broke his arm. The driver has blamed him but luckily there were witnesses and the litigation firm are going after him big-time.
People who drive into others are a bloody menace on the roads and deserve any monetary result they get.
Don't let this driver scare you into paying up, let someone else fight for you.
 
[ QUOTE ]
My daughter was recently struck by a car while out hacking. Fortunately she and the horse were unhurt but the car suffered some damage. The car driver is now looking to recover all his costs from us which could be a problem as horse and rider were not insured. I appreciate it was a mistake to be on the road without insurance. Question is, as it was the car drivers fault, what liability do we have?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not advisable to be uninsured on the road, but not compulsory. The car drivers have a duty of care to proceed at a speed which they can stop safely and to overtake horses with caution and offer plenty of space.

You haven't really given enough info to offer any sound advice regarding liability
 
[ QUOTE ]


Many years ago I was involved in a road accident too - wasn't simple to apportion blame as the horse spooked into the road but the car was travelling too close as well. Horse was OK but I broke my ribs badly. Car driver tried to claim damages for her dented bonnet, but insurance company claimed that as horses are unpredictable animals the driver needed to prove I was actually negligent, which I wasn't. So she wasn't able to pursue her claim.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've had a similar accident to this, but the first time the only damage was to the front of a landrover, and the driver mended it himself, so we didn't involve insurance or police.
The second time it happened in the same place, but we'd since found out that the horse was blind in the left eye, so potentially could have been liable, especially as horse had done it once before. The car was dented, but no-one was hurt, and this time we went halves on the cost of repairing.

I've also been in a car accident with a horse
blush.gif
Well, sort of... I was talking in my car to my friend who was returning from a ride, and her horse decided to sit on my bonnet
shocked.gif
She then said that she'd always thought he'd stop before making contact, so he'd obviously been close to doing this beforehand.
She paid for all repairs, I think she spoke to insurance, but we ended up getting it sorted without claiming.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You haven't really given enough info to offer any sound advice regarding liability

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto! I know everyone posting above is trying to be helpful, but it's all superfluous unless you can tell us whether the police have apportioned blame. (?)
 
Thanks for everyones advice.
The police are investigating but I think they are taking the view that as nobody was seriously injured, my daughter just suffering light bruising, and there being no independant witnesses that they would not take it any further.
The car was trying to overtake as it and the horses came off a sharp blind bend. The first my daughter knew the car was there was when it made contact with her leg and the side of the horse. The horse reared up which is when her leg was trapped against the passenger door causing the damage, and then jumped over the front quarter of the cars wing/bonnet into the road. The driver was not travelling fast and he claims that he gave her plenty of room and that the horse backed across the road into him. We now have a letter from the insurance brokers attempting to recover the drivers £100 excess, but we have had no demands from the insurance company so far.
 
In your position I would be inclined to politely decline to pay the insurance company anything. And instead, ask them to ask their client why they think it is ok to overtake ANYTHING on a bend?

Then give a nice neat package to your solicitor and let them get on with it.
 
Do not reply to the insurers at this point. Instruct a specialist firm of equine solicitor to advise you and act on your behalf.

If you contact the insurers directly you could predjudice your position.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Do not reply to the insurers at this point. Instruct a specialist firm of equine solicitor to advise you and act on your behalf.

If you contact the insurers directly you could predjudice your position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto, he shouldn't have been overtaking, and if the first she knew how close it was when the car brushed the horses leg - the car was far too close.

IMPORTANT - Get good advice from a specialist solicitor - don't to go to your local conveyancing one, they will take it on and screw it up. You don't have a NCB to lose, but the car driver does. They are at a distinct disadvantage IMO
 
[ QUOTE ]


However, I've since seen in horse magazines that a court case occured which set a legal precedent. Some horses escaped from a field due to vandalism and damaged a car (and I think might have injured car occupants) and the judge ruled that the owners should be liable even though there were not negligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

This case was actually overturned on appeal and the law was/is being amended to exclude claims where there was no negligence and every effort has been made to secure the horse/s

I think this case just shows how important it is for everybody, whether they ride on roads or not, to make sure they have Public Liability cover.
As stated, we can't really give advice as we are not in possession of the full facts, from both sides.
I wish you luck
 
[ QUOTE ]
This case was actually overturned on appeal and the law was/is being amended to exclude claims where there was no negligence and every effort has been made to secure the horse/s


[/ QUOTE ] Thanks for clarifying that - it's quite reassuring to know, even though all ours are insured!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


However, I've since seen in horse magazines that a court case occured which set a legal precedent. Some horses escaped from a field due to vandalism and damaged a car (and I think might have injured car occupants) and the judge ruled that the owners should be liable even though there were not negligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

This case was actually overturned on appeal and the law was/is being amended to exclude claims where there was no negligence and every effort has been made to secure the horse/s

[/ QUOTE ]

Mirvahedy v Henley was over turned AGAIN??
shocked.gif
Not to my knowledge.
crazy.gif
Or to Westlaw's either...
smirk.gif


I think your understanding of the case is one court out of date. My understanding of the case, since it went to the House of Lords in 2003, (which was subsequent to the Appeal court
wink.gif
) is that the Animals Act 1971 is to now be interpretted to assign strict liability to horses and therefore, horse riders.

I would think, therefore, that the OP, in the first instance, would be strictly liable for the damages caused - as you say, hence why we should all have insurance.
crazy.gif
HOWEVER, because in the above scenario it seem that the driver was not acting with due care, I would imagine it would be possible to argue contributory negligence. I would think it likely that with a good solicitor you may even be able to argue close to 100%, but that's just a guess. Certainly follow the advice given, and use an equine solicitor if you wish to take the matter to course. However, I would also say, there is a reason that insurance co.s tend to settle for claims rather than fight them, as fixing a car could be the cheaper option that taking this to court and paying legal fees just to escape responsibility for some of the damages.

Good luck with it all and let us know how you get on.
smile.gif
 
It sounds very odd to me--if he is only trying to claim his excess off you, that clearly means that his insurance company are paying up for the damage rather than trying to get the entire amount off you which implies they don't believe they can prove liability on your part.

I am tempted to say that, unjust as it seems, paying a solicitor even just to handle the corespondence for you is likely to cost more than the amount they are trying to claim, so unless your financial situation is such that you can afford to fight based on principle, I would handle the matter yourself and be prepared to pay up if necessary. If you decide not to use a solicitor, then I don't see what harm you can do yourself by replying to their contact and enquiring on what grounds he believes you should be required to pay, without making any further statements about what you believe the course of events to have been.

I would also try to obtain a copy of the police report if there is a chance that his version of events could be different to your daughter's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top