Peoples thoughts on this?

ycbm said:
Children of ten are deemed to have reached the age of criminal responsibility. If they can make a decision to murder someone, they can make a decision to ride a horse.

I am glad she gets some money, as long as it comes from an insurance company and not the mother.
Click to expand...

The average 10 year old would know that murder is wrong and refuse to participate if asked to join an adult in the middle of killing someone but most would get on a strange horse if someone they knew asked them if they wanted to ride, this girl made a decision to get on but had no idea of the consequences, the negligence was by the owner who had taken on an unsuitable horse yet still allowed a child to ride it.
 
For me this was completely the wrong decision by the judge. The owner discussed it with the girls mother, who had her own pony. Wouldn't this mean the mother knows how dangerous horses are? I work for a family, and they wouldn't be letting their experienced 14 year old on something like this. Although it does sound like describing it as an ex racer is pushing it. Was their anyone saying what the horse was like in her previous home? If it was shown it was out of character then this would surely be different. My other question would be will there be a counter claim against the person who sold I to her, as she watched this girl ride her at the viewing, and must surely have known she would ride it again.
 
Pearlsasinger said:
However they are not deemed old enough to sign a contract of any kind. The criminal responsibility age is something of an anomaly, as children under 16 are under the age of consent, because they are not considered able to make an informed decision. The judge obviously did not expect the insurance money to cover all that this girl will need for the rest of her life.
Click to expand...


No, children under the age of sixteen are considered too young to have sex, not too young to make a decision to have sex. Civil contracts are one thing, extrapolating that to say a child can't make a decision is, imo, ridiculous. I don't think the age of criminal consent is an anomaly. It's the age the law in this country says that a child is able to tell the difference between right and wrong and make decisions as to their actions.
 
be positive said:
The average 10 year old would know that murder is wrong and refuse to participate if asked to join an adult in the middle of killing someone but most would get on a strange horse if someone they knew asked them if they wanted to ride, this girl made a decision to get on but had no idea of the consequences, the negligence was by the owner who had taken on an unsuitable horse yet still allowed a child to ride it.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that a fourteen year old with her own pony does not understand the consequences of getting on a horse, one she also rode at the pre purchase vetting.

I'm glad she's got some money but this could also devastate the mother's, and possibly radically alter the son's, life if she has insufficient insurance to cover it.
 
ycbm said:
No, children under the age of sixteen are considered too young to have sex, not too young to make a decision to have sex. Civil contracts are one thing, extrapolating that to say a child can't make a decision is, imo, ridiculous. I don't think the age of criminal consent is an anomaly. It's the age the law in this country says that a child is able to tell the difference between right and wrong and make decisions as to their actions.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am afraid you are wrong there. There have been several well documented cases of 15 yr old girls agreeing to have sex with an older person (sometimes not much older) where they have been judged to not, in the eyes of the law, be old enough to consent.
There is a vast difference between a child being old enough to decide to commit murder, which almost all children would think of as abhorrent, and a child being old enough and wise enough to say no to an adult who was encouraging her to ride a horse.
The poor girl will need a lifetime of adjustments and care, which will have to be paid for.
I do wonder what happens if some posters on this thread are involved in a car accident, do they say "Don't worry careless driver, I will pay for my own repairs to be done?" I doubt it! The only reason that we don't all have to go to court over car accidents, is that ins companies have an agreement between themselves to pay for damage.
 
ycbm said:
I don't agree that a fourteen year old with her own pony does not understand the consequences of getting on a horse, one she also rode at the pre purchase vetting.

I'm glad she's got some money but this could also devastate the mother's, and possibly radically alter the son's, life if she has insufficient insurance to cover it.
Click to expand...

I didn't read anything about a pre purchase vetting just that she had ridden it briefly a week earlier when they went to view.

I agree that the owner will be devastated by the financial implications, will lose her house, if she has one, and be paying for her mistake forever, I am not sure how much an individual requires to help her for the rest of her life but cannot see any reason she will not be able to lead a relatively "normal" life, go to uni, be trained, employed and support herself like many others in similar situations do, it should not prevent her achieving a degree of independence.

I don't think many of us think about the consequences of getting on a horse, if we thought there was a high risk of life changing injury each time we get on, which we do in the back of our minds but it is not the first thought every day, then as adults we accept that risk.

I teach children and over the years have at times asked what is the worst thing that could happen, this is usually with nervous kids trying to get them more confident about something they are struggling with, none have ever replied I may end up paralysed and in a wheelchair for life, one girl's reply was she may break her leg again, she had previously done so and it was in her mind.
 
Sorry that was a Swype error. It should have said pre purchase viewing, not vetting.


I see your point BP
 
Last edited:
Actually, I am afraid you are wrong there. There have been several well documented cases of 15 yr old girls agreeing to have sex with an older person (sometimes not much older) where they have been judged to not, in the eyes of the law, be old enough to consent.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that makes me wrong? The law says that it isn't legal for a sixteen year old to consent. That's because in this country we don't believe that fifteen year olds should be having sex, not because we don't think they can make a decision to have sex. And the proof of that is that you will never see a case of two consenting fifteen year olds in court because they are judged to have been able to make that decision and it not being in the public interest to prosecute them.

Protecting girls from predatory older groomers is different altogether.
 
But don't forget that in this case it seems to be important that the owner of the horse was seen to have *encouraged* the girl to ride it in an open field. I also doubt that the comments the judge made regarding the horse's character were made solely on the basis that she was an ex-racer. If the horse had been re-schooled properly and was a well behaved riding horse, much would have been made of it and I suspect that the outcome would have been different. However, this doesn't seem to have been the case. It sounds like the judge's decision was significantly based on the fact that the girl was encouraged to get on an unsuitable horse in an unsuitable environment by an adult who ought to have had more sense.
 
ycbm said:
I don't see how that makes me wrong? The law says that it isn't legal for a sixteen year old to consent. That's because in this country we don't believe that fifteen year olds should be having sex, not because we don't think they can make a decision to have sex. And the proof of that is that you will never see a case of two consenting fifteen year olds in court because they are judged to have been able to make that decision and it not being in the public interest to prosecute them.

Protecting girls from predatory older groomers is different altogether.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect, the age of consent is just that, the age at which a person is deemed to have the intellectual and emotional capacity to consent.
 
Did the girls mother not assume the risk though, when she gave permission to the owner for her daughter to ride? Does that make her liable too?
 
No comment on case but a bit sad for ex racers in general if a single p2p 9 years ago will be given such weight as it appears to be from the quotes. Can't imagine it helping with rehoming much at all if it ends up ruling out sharers / having others ride at viewings / etc
 
I take your point YorksG.

I've been trying to work out an equivalent situation which would help me decide whether I agree with the judges or not. (Though I am glad for her sake that she has won).

We came down to motorbikes. If a boy of fourteen owned a 50cc bike and rode it off road (to remain legal) , what size bike should an owner know is to dangerous to allow that boy to get on. OH and I reckon you could reasonably expect him to be safe, in so far as motorbike riding is ever safe, on a 125cc but no more.

So, was the move from a pony of her own to a tb ridden in an open field more, or less, or the same as, a move from a 50cc bike to a 125?

This whole thing concerns me for what it means for the future of society. If two kids of 14 are climbing a tree in your back garden, do you now tell your child's friend to stop? Where are we going to have to draw the line to protect ourselves from lawsuits? Because even if you are fully insured, this is surely a level of stress no-one would choose to put themself through?

I sold a sixteen hand and a sixteen two horse to the non-riding parents of two eleven year olds in the last ten years. After this judgment, I would not let them get on the horse to try it. And both children would have missed out on their horse of a lifetime.

How many more childhood experiences are going to be stifled just because accidents are part of being alive? Where are kids ever going to learn how to draw their own boundaries?
 
Last edited:
Of course there may be more to this than meets the eye but from the news item I just feel very sad.It seems to me to be a case of the blind leading the blind.If the woman had been a professional, or even a proven experienced horse woman I would have said fair enough but it seems to me that there were gross errors on both sides.
 
You have this girl falling off doing something she wanted to do and was happy to do and claiming compensation with her whole life ahead of her.

Then you get Freddy Tylicki who has a family and was doing a job, yes a job he loved and was very good at. Along with every precaution taken to ensure safety. He had come down in a race and is now paralysed from just below the shoulders. He wont be seeking compensation from the racetrack, horses owner, the other jockeys around him that came down with him. As hard as it may be for him he will accept that these things happen when riding horses, let alone going at 30+mph.
 
We had a bit of a debate about this at the yard this morning. Alongside the livery there is a small riding school so we get a fair few teenage helpers / work experience kids. Our YO gets quite a number of ex- racers in every year and there is often the odd whizzy pony around too - none of which are on the riding school licence or used in the RS.

I think this ruling means he can't take the risk of having the kids up on those horses, even when they are pretty far along in their schooling. He's got a finely built 13h pony in at the moment which bucks. A couple of the 14 yo girls have been on it - but if they came off & had life changing injuries then I think this ruling sets the precedent around the YO's liability.
 
I would love to know that horse's background. The fact she was bought for £550, meat money, suggests there may have been a problem there. If she had been re-schooled and was going nicely she should have been worth more than that.

It's an absolute tragedy, for the girl involved, indeed for the other family too. And the worst part is, if she was a hot type of mare, they wouldn't have even had the sense to lunge her before hopping up. You get what you pay for and as it turned out there was nothing cheap about that mare.

I would love to know where she came out of and wonder if the person who sold her is feeling any remorse in all of this.
 
EKW said:
You have this girl falling off doing something she wanted to do and was happy to do and claiming compensation with her whole life ahead of her.

Then you get Freddy Tylicki who has a family and was doing a job, yes a job he loved and was very good at. Along with every precaution taken to ensure safety. He had come down in a race and is now paralysed from just below the shoulders. He wont be seeking compensation from the racetrack, horses owner, the other jockeys around him that came down with him. As hard as it may be for him he will accept that these things happen when riding horses, let alone going at 30+mph.
Click to expand...

That's not the point - 14 yr old girls riding for fun don't have insurance to cover them for life changing accidents. Especially when those accidents are the result of being encouraged to ride a horse that was patently unsuitable for it's owner. While people do indeed cope with these injuries (because they have to) the world is still not set up to be as accessible to folk in a wheelchair as it is to those who aren't. She also won't be getting some kind of cash windfall - it will be to make alterations to living accommodation etc so she can function as normally as possible for the rest of her life. She hasn't 'won' anything.

Professional jockeys would have insurance to cover them for life changing injuries. If they don't, then that's a decision they would have made, being well aware of the risks, unlike, say, a 14 yr old girl.
 
SEL said:
We had a bit of a debate about this at the yard this morning. Alongside the livery there is a small riding school so we get a fair few teenage helpers / work experience kids. Our YO gets quite a number of ex- racers in every year and there is often the odd whizzy pony around too - none of which are on the riding school licence or used in the RS.

I think this ruling means he can't take the risk of having the kids up on those horses, even when they are pretty far along in their schooling. He's got a finely built 13h pony in at the moment which bucks. A couple of the 14 yo girls have been on it - but if they came off & had life changing injuries then I think this ruling sets the precedent around the YO's liability.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I think the yard owner would have been liable even before this ruling. There are a lot of equestrian places that are still sailing very close to the edge when it comes to pay/using young helpers etc Essentially he's been using kids to help out at the RS, ostensibly for rides, but then not putting them on riding school horses for their rides, but using them to ride the horses that he presumably sells on (I make the selling on assumption as you say he gets them in every year)... He wouldn't have a leg to stand on!
 
What a tragic case for all parties concerned. It certainly makes you think. I was thinking of advertising for a sharer for my mare once I had her schooling established. Mainly because I don't have the time and energy to go out and do the things with her that I once thought I would. Running the livery yard is zapping every bit of energy from me right now. I thought I could get a small adult or maybe teenager who might like to do some competing and who might me a more aesthetically pleasing size for her. But this has put me right off!
 
SpottyMare said:
To be honest, I think the yard owner would have been liable even before this ruling. There are a lot of equestrian places that are still sailing very close to the edge when it comes to pay/using young helpers etc Essentially he's been using kids to help out at the RS, ostensibly for rides, but then not putting them on riding school horses for their rides, but using them to ride the horses that he presumably sells on (I make the selling on assumption as you say he gets them in every year)... He wouldn't have a leg to stand on!
Click to expand...

Actually I've always thought this too - I did some teaching for him when I was between normal jobs, but called time on it when I saw some of the RS practices. Yes, they'll be sold on. He's one of those people who has sailed through life without much thought to H&S & got away with it. He gets the ok from the parents but as we've seen from this ruling that counts for nothing.
 
A very interesting ruling that has certainly made me think. I imagine the BHS and other third party insurers will be receiving a flurry of phone calls Monday morning! I will certainly be checking my cover with regards to Gold membership and other people riding my horses. I've previously allowed my children's friends (with their parents permission) to sit on my safe oldie- sadly I won't be doing that now! And competent friends have also ridden him- I'm now wondering if that will have to stop too?

I also wonder about my own children and them riding friend's horses/ponies- should I as a parent have an insurance policy for this or be checking the friend's insurance?!

A whole can of worms!!
 
made me think as well. Is it possible to get third party insurance/public liability insurance (for several horses) without actually getting a horse insurance policy? I cannot seem to find this. I don't want to insure any of the horses just the third party risks.

Other than BHS Gold what do other people do about Public liability insurance for their horses?

for a long while I have not allowed anyone to ride our horses except myself and OH. I also don't allow anyone to even come up and stroke them either. That makes me seem terribly mean. In the old days I never thought twice about letting people sit on them.
 
It's on most house insurance policies as standard.

Non riding/affiliate membership of BD will give you it, as will BHS.
 
ycbm said:
It's on most house insurance policies as standard.

Non riding/affiliate membership of BD will give you it, as will BHS.
Click to expand...

yes, our house policy is NFU and it does have public liab, I have read the BHS thing which says it is insurance of last resort. Is or are both of these enough based on what seems could be a massive financial risk if anything goes wrong?
 
equi said:
Presumably briefly in walk and trot maybe canter in an arena with the owner there and having ridden it themselves first and the horse settled in his environment. There is a vast difference to the situation the girl was then put in in the field.
Click to expand...

But we don't know this! She could have already ridden it in an open field - she must have felt safe on it as she accepted a second ride. The riding school I ran for 10 years had many ex TB racers working in the school - they ar enot all maniacs!
 
This ruling has made me have two major thoughts. Firstly, that whilst riding is a risky sport, you can try and reduce the risks, sadly in this case they didn't.

Secondly, it's made me think about getting my own liability and personal accident insurance. I ride a number of horses at very different places, and think it's a sign of the times that I need to be covered, just in case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top