My horse kicked another horse - am I liable

[horseygal123]

My horse spooked when being brought in from the field and managed to get away. She got to other horses being brought in ahead and stopped with them, as I was approaching the horses moved and one of them brushed her leg so she kicked, not badly but enough to cut the other. The owner of said other horse has asked if we will put it through my insurance, at first I said yes but since then have seen her posting complete lies and slating my horse all over social media. I am now extremely reluctant to put it through my insurance! Especially as she was advised by vet to box rest due to a couple of stitches, but she ‘doesn’t believe in box rest’ so chose to ignore vet advice. Why should I pay her vets fees if she doesn’t even listen to vet advice???
Where do I stand? Tia x

 

[Goldenstar]

You need to speak to your insurer today .
You may or may not be liable in law , if you choose to pay the bill that’s another matter .
I doubt your insurer will just pay up quietly but I am no expert .
But a stitched up horse owner who won’t box rest , it’s a potential nightmare .
Yet advice quickly .

 

[Ambers Echo]

Oh dear! I think you need to separate the issues:
I assume the stitches were as a result of the kick?

Your horse kicked hers and though accidents happen, the right thing to do is accept responsibility. But I doubt it is an insurance job? A couple of stitches sounds below excess levels.
She is ignoring her vet - that is up to her but does mean I would not accept any additional costs for example if the cuts re-open or get infected.

Re the social media, I'd put one polite response saying it is unfortunate your horse kicked hers but it was an accident and you have paid for the vet call out and necessary treatment and are not commenting further. Then block her.

 

[be positive]

I am not sure you could put it through your insurance, it was an accident, damage was minor, you were not negligent so they are highly unlikely to pay out, you should not have agreed to pay and accept responsibility so will probably have to offer a contribution out of your own pocket to keep the peace, ignore social media.
Whether she follows the advice given by the vet is not relevant, unless there is an underlying issue that means she doesn't get better or gets worse in which case she is at fault.
A couple of stitches is not much so I suspect the bill should be under most insurance excess anyway.

 

[MiJodsR2BlinkinTite]

Are you a BHS Gold member OP? As this is something that (if you are) I would give their Legal Helpline a ring about.

If not, I'd be inclined to keep schtuum right now, whatever you do. Whether on social media or anywhere else, I feel it would be unwise to offer any comment. The less said the better I feel.

I would, in the first instance, speak to YOUR insurance company and see what they say. At the end of the day it is YOUR horse which has caused the problem and injured another horse, and I feel you cannot escape any liability for that, the issue has to be faced, and it is exactly for incidents like this that you would have taken out insurance in the first place. That is what would happen if this was an accident involving a motor vehicle, say, and I think this would be the "correct" course of action for you now. Then, if there IS liability on your part, the two insurance companies i.e. yours and the owner of the other horse's, can then communicate with each other and decide on a way forward.

If the owner of the injured horse has chosen to ignore veterinary advice, then that is up to them, but they ARE wishing to claim for injuries for their horse from your insurance policy, they may find that this wasn't the best course of action as insurance companies like people to do what they're told by vets etc!

Best to say nothing, other than - if pressed - you could say that you are in communication with your insurance company about the issue, and then let things rest.

 

[scats]

I would probably offer to pay the vet bill to keep the peace. Surely it can’t be more than a couple of hundred at most?

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

Not much more to add to others except IMO you are liable and I would just make an offer under the normal excess of insurance level and I would definitely be taking screen shots of everything she is saying, in particular her admission that she is not following the vet's instructions - that could be crucial at a later date if things go wrong for the horse.

 

[9tails]

I would probably offer to pay the vet bill to keep the peace. Surely it can’t be more than a couple of hundred at most?

Usually I would agree with this, but the owner isn't following vet advice of box resting. If the horse then gets an infection, OP will be bullied into paying that call out and treatment too.

I'd also speak to your insurance company, they may tell her to jog on but she was the one that asked for it to be done through insurance.

Edit to say that Mrs Jingle's answer covers both scenarios.

 

[dogatemysalad]

This is different to a horse kicking in the field because you were leading the horse and therefore expected to be in control. If the spook was caused by something exceptional such as a firework going off or a very low flying aircraft, then it would be a reasonable reaction to something extraordinary. If the spook was due to your carelessness or a badly trained horse, then you have a degree of liability.
Depending on the situation and in the interests of goodwill, I'd offer to compensate all or part of the vet visit and offer to help out with the extra work involved with box rest. Hopefully, the other livery will respond in a gracious way, but either way, you'll have the moral high ground.

 

[criso]

I would check if you have legal cover with your horse insurance, BHS or home insurance. Often one or all offer this so you can discuss. Then act on their advice. The other owner asked you to do it through insurance, so that is what you are doing.

ETA it may not be under the excess. My horse got kicked in the field, it was a Sunday so out of hours costs. Needed stapling and antibiotics. Despite best efforts and following vets instructions, the cut got infected. Then we had an allergic reaction to the antibiotics and needed different more expensive drugs. At the end the total bill was over 1k

 

[honetpot]

Never accept liability, your insurance will not pay out.
This should be in your insurance contract. What happens if the wound gets infected and a simple cut turns into cellulitis. My friends horse maxed out her insurance from a kick.
Contact your insurance company, give her your insurance details and let her get on with.
Social media, just say something like you have given her your insurance details and leave it.
If you are close enough to be kicked, in my opinion it’s your fault.

 

[Summit]

Surely this is just an accident? No different than if it were to happen in a field. I wouldn’t be going through my insurance (who knows what and how much she‘ll try and claim for)....and if she was slating me through social media then I’d tell her to bog off

 

[ycbm]

Never accept liability, your insurance will not pay out.

.

Insurance companies tell customers not to admit liability because lots of people would say sorry when it's not their strict liability, leaving the insurance company with a fight on their hands not to pay.

If their customer is clearly liable, they will pay whether they have admitted liability or not.

This sounds like an accident to me unless there is previous history of the horse escaping when being led. It's just the kind of thing horses do. I dont think there is any liability.

.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

It could be argued that you were negligent in allowing your horse to get away from you while you were leading her, so that would make you liable for the vet bill, because she kicked while you should have been in control of her. Your insurance company will need to be informed asap.

However should there be a further vet bill, you will need to be able to prove that the owner did not follow her own vet's advice re box rest. I'm sure that your insurance company will advise about that too.

Your insurance company are best placed to advise you.

 

[honetpot]

Insurance companies tell customers not to admit liability because lots of people would say sorry when it's not their strict liability, leaving the insurance company with a fight on their hands not to pay.

If their customer is clearly liable, they will pay whether they have admitted liability or not.

This sounds like an accident to me unless there is previous history of the horse escaping when being led. It's just the kind of thing horses do. I dont think there is any liability.

.

Admitting liability may invalidate your contract with The insurance company if it’s in the terms of your contract with them. It also usually says to inform them of any incident, they just put it on file.

I have had two circumstances where I could have had a potentially large claims against me, on both occasions I referred them to my insurance company and told the insurance company the details and there my be a claim.
It’s not pleasant, you get verbal abuse but it’s effective and it’s out of you hands.
One potential claim didn’t get any money, and it almost went to court. The other thought better of it, as they just wanted us to pay a large bill for their mistake, which they would have to defend and reveal the circumstances of.

 

[MumsGloriousOrca]

Call her bluff and politely ask if she can get you vet and insurance details so you can get things rolling sooner rather than later. Wouldn't surprise me if she's not insured and if she has been advised by the vet to keep him in on rest, any insurance she has is void regardless.

I'd call her on it by posting under Facebook rants and be super nice and offer to do whatever so she's backed into a corner and has nowhere else to go.

Sounds to me like she's up shit creek with turds for paddles and if she's a nasty cow and has been publicly having a go at you, I'd throw her a new even bigger turd and see what she does with it.

 

[ycbm]

Admitting liability may invalidate your contract with The insurance company if it’s in the terms of your contract with them..

I don't want the OP to worry about already having admitted liability, so I've been looking this up and it appears that the situation is that at the time of the incident, you are insured. If admitting liability invalidates the contract, it can only do so AFTER the event you have admitted liability for, by definition. It's a threat insurers put in contracts to stop people who aren't legally liable for an accident from saying that they were, because it causes them grief to fight it.



.

 

[Red-1]

If the kick happened in the field while they were loose, then no, it would be normal horse behaviour.

But, of the horse was in the care of a handler (either you or someone at your request or with your permission - presuming no one was stealing her) then yes, you failed to keep the horse safely controlled and as a result the other horse has been injured.

I would inform your insurers straight away. If the cost of the vet is under the excess, then I would simply pay the vet bill myself. TBF, if I was controlling my horse and someone else let theirs escape and make mine need vets treatment then I would probably want the bill paid too! It is not her business whether you pay yourself or go through insurance. Whether she is insured or not is irrelevant.

The FB nastiness is a separate issue. I would unfriend her for a start. Un-join any groups she is in. She s cross that her horse is injured. Slating your horse on FB is not helpful but if it were me, I would just keep at a distance and let it blow over.

I would, however, screen shot the part where she is not following vets advice, in case the wound does not heal.

 

[MumsGloriousOrca]

I don't want the OP to worry about already having admitted liability, so I've been looking this up and it appears that the situation is that at the time of the incident, you are insured. If admitting liability invalidates the contract, it can only do so AFTER the event you have admitted liability for, by definition. It's a threat insurers put in contracts to stop people who aren't legally liable for an accident from saying that they were, because it causes them grief to fight it

It's not a problem to have said in person / verbally or agreed at the time If OP had already contacted insurers told them about the incident, said it was her horse's fault, competed forms and got a claim underway already it would be different but not a done deal.

As things stand the OP is only asking the owner to exchange change deets, pics and whatnot. There's no liability there it's standard practice and a requirement to make sure both parties have all the info.

If and when insurance get copies of vet records and it shows the horse has an existing condition or injury and was turned out against the advice or vet it doesn't matter whether OP stripped naked, painted herself blue and ran down the street shouting TITTIES!!

Owner allowed further risk of accident or injury. That's it. Case closed. Job Done.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

I don't want the OP to worry about already having admitted liability, so I've been looking this up and it appears that the situation is that at the time of the incident, you are insured. If admitting liability invalidates the contract, it can only do so AFTER the event you have admitted liability for, by definition. It's a threat insurers put in contracts to stop people who aren't legally liable for an accident from saying that they were, because it causes them grief to fight it

It's not a problem to have said in person / verbally or agreed at the time If OP had already contacted insurers told them about the incident, said it was her horse's fault, competed forms and got a claim underway already it would be different but not a done deal.

As things stand the OP is only asking the owner to exchange change deets, pics and whatnot. There's no liability there it's standard practice and a requirement to make sure both parties have all the info.

If and when insurance get copies of vet records and it shows the horse has an existing condition or injury and was turned out against the advice or vet it doesn't matter whether OP stripped naked, painted herself blue and ran down the street shouting TITTIES!!

Owner allowed further risk of accident or injury. That's it. Case closed. Job Done.

The horse that was injured wasn't turned out against vet advice at the time of the injury, the OP was meant to be in control of the horse at the time of the injury BUT she wasn't she had let it go, immediately prior to the incident. So OP is liable to pay the vet bill arising from the incident.
However, if the wound does not heal as expected she will not be liable to pay any further vet bills, if the owner hasn't followed the vet's advice.

 

[MumsGloriousOrca]

Pearlsasinger Ahh right sorry I get it now. Misread and misunderstood the timeline re: vet and bo rest.

The OP's horse spooked, unsettled and gave a kick / caused injury to another horse which owner wants OP to pay for via insurance is that right?

The vet came out, cleaned, gave a couple of stitches and advised resting up after the horse was kicked? If so I think this one is even less worthy of worry and would throw a deaf one and go about your usual.

If she really does want to pursue a clam from your insurance then smile, nod and call them.

To me this is an absolutely nine-pint typical yard bitching. Give it no more thought unless she comes directly to you. Also get rid of her Facebook posts, cut it loose and don't let it lure you in or send you nuts

 

[ycbm]

I'm not clear why anyone thinks the OP is legally liable for the fact that her horse spooked and pulled away from her. This is normal horse behaviour. We would all try not to let it happen but with the best will in the world it occasionally will. Even if it's possible, it's very unsafe for a handler to try to hang on to a horse that's made up its mind to pull free.

Unless the horse has history of pulling away, in which case it should have been in a bridle/chifney/with two leaders, then I'm really struggling to see how the OP has any legal liability here?

That's not to say that she shouldn't pay the first callout, I would in that situation.


.

 

[Red-1]

I'm not clear why anyone thinks the OP is legally liable for the fact that her horse spooked and pulled away from her. This is normal horse behaviour. We would all try not to let it happen but with the best will in the world it occasionally will. Even if it's possible, it's very unsafe for a handler to try to hang on to a horse that's made up its mind to pull free.

Unless the horse has history of pulling away, in which case it should have been in a bridle/chifney/with two leaders, then I'm really struggling to see how the OP has any legal liability here?

That's not to say that she shouldn't pay the first callout, I would in that situation.


.

It is because a few years back it was decided that owning a horse made you completely liable. Can't remember the legal term.

From memory, it was from a horse that escaped the field despite having post and rail fencing. The owner was not said to have been negligent, as the fencing was in good order, but escape it did and as owner the person had to pay for the very expensive motor car that to destroyed.

After this, horse insurance increased in £ as the liability aspect went up.

Panicking and running through a fence is also normal horse behaviour. They were still liable.

If the incident had taken place when both were turned out in a field, then I would say that the owner had accepted the risk of a kick whilst turned out in the field.

The incident occurred when the horses were being led and OP's horse was not adequately restrained. She is therefore liable even if she were not negligent in her actions.

 

[ycbm]

I wouldn't be certain that case applies. There's a good argument for saying that horses should not be able to run through their boundary fencing onto a road. We don't accept that argument on the forum for a stallion who breaks into the neighbouring field and serves a mare. It also isn't possible ever to restrain a horse which is determined to pull away from its handler. So unless the horse has previous form, or worn equipment broke, I can't see the strict legal liability.



I'd really like to know the answer to this one, for my own peace of mind. Do we have any equestrian lawyers on the forum?
.

 

[Red-1]

From a legal website - it is called strict liability where equines are concerned...

"
This act is unusual in that unlike many other acts of parliament which impose liability on people, it does not limit this liability to situations in which that person is careless or reckless, or where he fails to take reasonable steps to prevent the risk. This was considered by the House of Lords in 2003, which decided by a two to one majority that in the absence of any such provisions, the act must be interpreted as imposing a strict liability on the owners of horses.

Strict liability is a problem for horse owners, because it means that even if they have taken all reasonably precautions to prevent the risk of damage from materialising, they may still be legally responsible for that damage under the Act.

The 2003 House of Lords decision also made it clear that ‘panic’ was to be considered a special characteristic which is only found in horses under certain circumstances. It therefore follows that where horses are spooked and stampede in panic, the owner may well be liable for any damage caused. This makes it very difficult for horse owners to defend personal injury claims, and if you find yourself in this situation you should consult a specialist equine law solicitor."

 

[Red-1]

That's not to say that she shouldn't pay the first callout, I would in that situation.


.

Me too, it would seem only decent that a person is minding their own business leading there horse when another gets loose, runs up and kicks it, causing a vets visit and stitches. Never mind the liability, I would be mortified that my horse had done that and I had allowed it.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

I think that the owner of the kicker could be considered to be negligent, tbh, the horse pulled away from her. I think that it could be said that it is in the nature of horses to 'spook' and try to pull away from their handlers, so steps should be taken to make sure that either they can't do so, or if they do, they can't get close enough to others to kick. OP could have waited until all other horses were out of the way before setting off with her horse, or led it in a bridle.


I have been keeping horses for over 40 years and never had one pull away from me while being led, it should not happen.


I can't think of any reason why OP wouldn't have offered to pay the vet bill, or why any-one should suggest that she ignore the other horse's owner. Thank goodness that I am not on a livery yard!

 

[ycbm]

I have been keeping horses for over 40 years and never had one pull away from me while being led, it should not happen.

😇😇😇


You've clearly not met the kind of horses I've met or seen some of the situations I've seen.


.

 

[paddy555]

😇😇😇


You've clearly not met the kind of horses I've met or seen some of the situations I've seen.


.

nor me. It can happen and it does.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

😇😇😇


You've clearly not met the kind of horses I've met or seen some of the situations I've seen.


.

No, I use rope halters and hang on. I have had horses, including youngsters, bouncing around, spinning round me, doing handstands but I was taught never to let go - and I haven't! When we were at livery we had to walk about 1/4 mile between a river and a mill dam in the dark but we didn't have loose horses.
We did once have a horse loose on the road leading her back to a field because the bus driver, whose vehicle was rattling the trees behind her would NOT stop. I wasn't actually leading on that occasion but I don't think it would have made any difference, the headcollar broke. I haven't used one since, we went back to halters and would always lead in a bridle on the road now. Fortunately there were no ijnures to anyone.