Responsibility for damage caused by out of control horse

[Owner Of Damaged Car]

My car has recently been badly damaged by a horse on a public road. The rider lost control, the horse reversed around and kicked its hindlegs into our car (we had stopped to thank the rider for pulling aside). The young rider was an employee of a riding school and the horse was 'in training' . I contacted our insurance company but the Equestrian Centre has not replied to them and refused to cooperate with the insurance process. We intend to take action through the small claims court. Who, in your view, is responsible? The equestrian owner, the rider (as a representative of the centre) or the owner of the horse? Thank you

 

[Jenko109]

The riding school should have appropriate insurance in place for this very type of scenario.

 

[Amy May In A Manger]

It's pretty irrelevant, and that's what you have insurance for. They'll be the experts at pursuing the claim.

 

[Red-1]

I am sorry for the damage to your car. Whilst at first glance, the damage was caused by the horse and therefore the horse rider or owner is responsible, proving who is responsible would be down to a few other factors.

A car has to pass a horse at 2m distance and at no more than 10mph. If the horse rider requests slower or that you stop, then a horse has priority. If this was not followed, then it could be the car driver at fault. It could also be a defence if the car was making undue noise due to a defective exhaust, if it had flags on or if it tooted the horn.

As a rule, horse owners are strictly liable though.

 

[ihatework]

If the rider is employed to ride the horse then it’s most likely that their employer would be responsible although it could come down to the relationship between employer and owner if different parties. Your insurance company really should be dealing with this for you, but if you are going it alone then I’d start with the employer of the rider.
It would have to be a very dodgy outfit for them not to have insurance for this, it’s a fairly basic scenario

 

[teapot]

Are you 100% sure it's a riding school - if so, the equestrian owner and the horse owner could well be one and the same, not that it matters - let the insurance companies battle it out.

Every riding school must have public liability insurance as part of their licence, and would be ill advised not to have that policy include damage to third parties/property especially if they're hacking out.

 

[Red-1]

I would also say that the rider saying that the horse was in training may be seen as some admission of liability.

A riding school has to be licenced by the local council. If they won't respond having damaged your vehicle, I think I would contact the council licencing office to make sure they are running a legal outfit, which would include insurance.

 

[Red-1]

It's pretty irrelevant, and that's what you have insurance for. They'll be the experts at pursuing the claim.

Ouch, I have dealt with a lot of people who have pursued insurance claims. Quite often, they will accept a 50/50 claim, even if you are not at fault, just so it is quickly dealt with as sorting claims is time consuming and time is money.

I too would wish to sort it out myself.

Also, interestingly, if a horse kicks a car, and the car is damaged but the horse not, and there are no injuries, it is not classified as a Road Traffic Collision, as per definition. It does put a slightly different legal slant on it.

 

[Canelloni]

My car has recently been badly damaged by a horse on a public road. The rider lost control, the horse reversed around and kicked its hindlegs into our car (we had stopped to thank the rider for pulling aside). The young rider was an employee of a riding school and the horse was 'in training' . I contacted our insurance company but the Equestrian Centre has not replied to them and refused to cooperate with the insurance process. We intend to take action through the small claims court. Who, in your view, is responsible? The equestrian owner, the rider (as a representative of the centre) or the owner of the horse? Thank you

It’s a little puzzling that you ‘had stopped to thank the rider for pulling aside’. This wouldn’t be the usual reaction to meeting a horse on the roadway.
It looks like the rider was dealing with a young horse in traffic, so she stepped out of your way, and was probably wishing you’d just carry on and get the car away so she could settle the horse again.
Might have contributed to what happened?

 

[Sanversera]

As you were closer than two metres then I would say the fault is yours.

 

[Abacus]

As you were closer than two metres then I would say the fault is yours.

Not necessarily true, as OP says that s/he had stopped, and the horse reversed and kicked the car. At the time of stopping they might have been 2m+ away.

 

[HopOnTrot]

Your insurance company needs to talk to the riding school’s insurance company.

Unless they’ve decided no case to pursue.

You could try and recover this in small claims but you then open yourself up to counter claims and 3rd party costs. Which I imagine would be greater than the cost of the repairs. I’m assuming that you don’t have this on dashcam and so it’s a case of your word against theirs?

 

[HopOnTrot]

Why hasn’t the insurance company repaired it as an “at fault” claim instead if no reply from 3rd party?

 

[Red-1]

It’s a little puzzling that you ‘had stopped to thank the rider for pulling aside’. This wouldn’t be the usual reaction to meeting a horse on the roadway.
It looks like the rider was dealing with a young horse in traffic, so she stepped out of your way, and was probably wishing you’d just carry on and get the car away so she could settle the horse again.
Might have contributed to what happened?

I would dare say that it did contribute to what happened, but I don't think that a non horse aware driver would be expected to know that, nor do I think that it should mean the driver is at fault. That would be as long as the driver didn't stop close to the horse, as in within 2m. Even then, if the vehicle was stationary at the time, I would say the horse/rider was at fault.

I makes me fed up when people don't take responsibility for their accidents. The horse was in training, the car had stopped and the horse reversed round and kicked the car, causing serious damage. The fault doesn't sound like it is the driver's!

I do hope the driver had a dash cam!

I would take the equestrian centre (as employer) and the rider (as person in charge of the horse at the time) to court, having first written, via recorded delivery, a letter requesting owner details. I would detail the fact that owner details have not been supplied to the court. Normally for an RTC, if details are not given, the Police will visit the other party and get details for you, but this is not an RTC by definition so they probably won't.

I know someone who used to work at small claims court and they said that if you get the paperwork (free) and fill it, then send a copy to the other party, informing them that this is action towards taking them to court, then 90% of people who know they are at fault will pay up. That way you never do have to pay to register the case. This is what I'm intending to to with British Airways / Dial a Flight atm!

 

[KittenInTheTree]

Why in the world did you stop to thank the rider for moving over? Were you actively trying to put additional stress on the horse? I witnessed a similar incident once, only the poor horse went up and over backwards into a gully. The rider ended up pinned underneath the horse until help arrived, and the horse had to winced out. Miraculously, both survived, and were able to walk away.

 

[ihatework]

Why in the world did you stop to thank the rider for moving over? Were you actively trying to put additional stress on the horse? I witnessed a similar incident once, only the poor horse went up and over backwards into a gully. The rider ended up pinned underneath the horse until help arrived, and the horse had to winced out. Miraculously, both survived, and were able to walk away.

Trying to be polite maybe?
Don’t forget, non horse people don’t generally understand the sort of pretty innocuous human behaviours that can actually make life tricky for horse riders

 

[KittenInTheTree]

Oh, and in answer to your original question, I feel that whoever stopped the car instead of driving on slowly and at a suitably wide berth from the horse and rider in question was to blame. Which is probably not the answer that you want.

 

[Amy May In A Manger]

Ouch, I have dealt with a lot of people who have pursued insurance claims. Quite often, they will accept a 50/50 claim, even if you are not at fault, just so it is quickly dealt with as sorting claims is time consuming and time is money.

I too would wish to sort it out myself.

Also, interestingly, if a horse kicks a car, and the car is damaged but the horse not, and there are no injuries, it is not classified as a Road Traffic Collisio

As you were closer than two metres then I would say the fault is yours.

Hard to be 2 meters away on some roads, obviously.

 

[Goldenstar]

What’s the cost of fixing the damage ?

 

[luckyoldme]

Bloody hell. There's a lot of people piling in on the op here.
The car was stationary and the horse backed into it and damaged their car.
Why he/she stopped is irrelevant.
The fact that the op said the horse reversed should be enough for folk to know that this is a non horsey person and can't be expected to know anything about how a horse might react or what the rider might want to do.
We don't all have to fault the driver just because this is a horsey forum, no one is piling in on the rider or suggesting they did anything wrong. It's just one of them things.
Just a question of who should pay for the damage.

 

[Fransurrey]

If the school is refusing to cooperate with the insurance process it's a police matter, but if you have indeed pulled in behind a horse, I would say that's an odd course of action so wouldn't be surprised if the insurance split liability or absolved the rider. Instances like this are the reason I have a dash cam, as otherwise there's a lot of 'he said, she said'. I can't understand why a riding school would refuse to cooperate, though. Has anyone checked that they have their PL notice up in view, or asked to see a copy?

 

[SEL]

I have people stopping all the time to show their kiddies my horses - i just wish they would think about where they are stopping. Blind bends not the best.

OP - having bravely entered a horse forum and probably regretting it your insurance company solicitors should write to the equestrian centre. If it was one of their horses &/or riders their insurance company should step into action.

 

[Peglo]

Oh, and in answer to your original question, I feel that whoever stopped the car instead of driving on slowly and at a suitably wide berth from the horse and rider in question was to blame. Which is probably not the answer that you want.

We have very little detail of what occurred though. Maybe the driver of the damaged car couldn’t move forward because of another vehicle blocking their way. We don’t know.

I don’t think it’s bad that a driver might want to stop if a horse is playing up. It would’ve been far worse for the horse, rider and car if the horse hit a moving car.

 

[Red-1]

Bloody hell. There's a lot of people piling in on the op here.
The car was stationary and the horse backed into it and damaged their car.
Why he/she stopped is irrelevant.
The fact that the op said the horse reversed should be enough for folk to know that this is a non horsey person and can't be expected to know anything about how a horse might react or what the rider might want to do.
We don't all have to fault the driver just because this is a horsey forum, no one is piling in on the rider or suggesting they did anything wrong. It's just one of them things.
Just a question of who should pay for the damage.

I agree. I would have been quite glad the OP had slowed and waited for me to clear the road. I have had a few nasty run ins with cars on single track roads where they have kept coming and presumed I would leap out of the way.

I also have two neighbours where I hoist myself and horse onto an embankment between the road and a ditch, then they draw alongside, put the window down and want to chat whilst I am perched precariously. My horse is pretty good, so I internally 'rollseyes' and keep good neighbourly relations. If he were not so good, I would hog the road until there was a wider piece of verge where I would not be precariously balanced. It is up to me as a rider to choose a suitable place for cars to pass, depending on the capabilities of my horse!

If the school is refusing to cooperate with the insurance process it's a police matter, but if you have indeed pulled in behind a horse, I would say that's an odd course of action so wouldn't be surprised if the insurance split liability or absolved the rider. Instances like this are the reason I have a dash cam, as otherwise there's a lot of 'he said, she said'. I can't understand why a riding school would refuse to cooperate, though. Has anyone checked that they have their PL notice up in view, or asked to see a copy?

Sadly, this is a purely civil matter. It is not an RTC so there is no need for Police involvement. They may choose to help but most are pulled out trying to get to house burglaries and failing, so attending to a non life endangering civil dispute over who pays for a car damage will be low down the list.

I agree that no one is jumping on the rider, there was an error of judgement or whatever, but liability for a horse is absolute in law, unless the car did something more silly (such as being too close) than pause to say thank you.

 

[emilylou]

Having been in a RTA with a horse myself:

3 cars involved, 2 cars damaged, horse injured, 1 car not damaged (but arguably the cause, however was also stopped)
I had public liability insurance, gave all my details to the drivers and never heard anything from it.
I'm unsure whose insurance paid for the damage but it wasn't me, who had the horse who damaged the cars.

You first need liability to be established before you can pursue costs.

Which I would add, will be difficult as you will need evidence that you were not at fault and the current highway code gives preference to vulnerable road users - i.e. the horse rider is more vulnerable than the car.
The riding school may have a different view of who is liable, hence their reluctance to engage with you.

If I were you, I would gather evidence relating to liability and communicate via your insurance company.

 

[IrishMilo]

Why in the world did you stop to thank the rider for moving over? Were you actively trying to put additional stress on the horse?

Lord forbid someone tries to do a nice thing for a horse rider on the road! Jeez. Way to enforce the stereotype...

How would stopping a vehicle put stress on a horse?

 

[HaplessHorse]

Oh, and in answer to your original question, I feel that whoever stopped the car instead of driving on slowly and at a suitably wide berth from the horse and rider in question was to blame. Which is probably not the answer that you want.

I think non-horsey people sometimes don’t understand things like that. And legally, the rider/RS would still be at fault because stopping the car is within the law.

To answer the original question, I think it would either be the rider or RS because the rider is paid to “drive” the horse under the instruction of the RS. I doubt it would be the owner of the horse (the RS probably owns it anyway, making this a moot point) because it’s a bit like someone crashing a borrowed car into your car, the owner of the “borrowed car” (horse) did not cause this crash. It was the judgement of the RS for asking the rider to take the horse out, or the rider for making a bad decision in the moment that caused the accident.

But for future reference for the driver, just wave as you go by, no need to stop unless asked. Stopping a car next to a horse could worry a horse, as it could cause a horse to feel trapped and claustrophobic by narrowing the route, if you’re wanting an explanation. Stopping behind a horse and waiting for the rider to wave you past should be fine.

ETA: have a chat with a solicitor about the legal bit in order to determine which of the RS or rider is at fault, now that you’re armed with some info on the horsey bit.

 

[Red-1]

I think non-horsey people sometimes don’t understand things like that. And legally, the rider/RS would still be at fault because stopping the car is within the law.

To answer the original question, I think it would either be the rider or RS because the rider is paid to “drive” the horse under the instruction of the RS. I doubt it would be the owner of the horse (the RS probably owns it anyway, making this a moot point) because it’s a bit like someone crashing a borrowed car into your car, the owner of the “borrowed car” (horse) did not cause this crash. It was the judgement of the RS for asking the rider to take the horse out, or the rider for making a bad decision in the moment that caused the accident.

But for future reference for the driver, just wave as you go by, no need to stop unless asked. Stopping a car next to a horse could worry a horse, as it could cause a horse to feel trapped and claustrophobic by narrowing the route, if you’re wanting an explanation. Stopping behind a horse and waiting for the rider to wave you past should be fine.

ETA: have a chat with a solicitor about the legal bit in order to determine which of the RS or rider is at fault, now that you’re armed with some info on the horsey bit.

Horses have different liabilities as the law recognises that they have a will of their own. There have been a couple of case law precedents a while back re strictly liability in the case of horse incidents.

A sample from an article from 2022 re the newest case law, Schoultz V Ball, where a horse escaped from a field...
The judge found it is likely the horses who had escaped left their field by walking over “inadequately installed” and collapsed fencing, rather than the fact they were frightened or chased. It was found they went some way along the B280, more likely in response to an “adverse stimulus” from which they recovered quickly, and that it is likely Lowri was “stationary and calm” at the time of the collision.

For strict liability to be found under the Animals Act, the animal must be shown to have a dangerous behavioural characteristic, which may only be seen at particular times or in particular circumstances, and it is that which must have caused the damage.

This is a case where the horse was stationary at the time of an accident, which was an RTC due to injuries. This is not the same as OP's accident, where the horse reversed into the car.

However, the HH article goes on to say...

“The leading case is still Mirvahedy v Henley, in the Supreme Court, so this hasn’t got as much weight but it’s certainly positive, and moving in the right direction,” Ms Garnett told H&H.

In Mirvahedy v Henley, it was eventually ruled that the owner of some horses who escaped from a field and were involved in a collision in which a driver was badly injured was liable.

“I had a livery yard then and my insurance doubled overnight,” she said. “It had an impact on anyone who owned a horse but this case, I hope, will be persuasive.”

Ms Garnett added that the case shows the importance of having public liability insurance, with which Suzy Middleton, CEO of South Essex Insurance Brokers, agrees.

“It highlights how important it is to buy liability cover,” she told H&H. “People may see their horses in a field and think the only issues are vets’ bills or when they’re riding them. Until you see these claims, which can be quite significant, you may not see how important the insurance is. If the cover hadn’t been in place in this case, it would have dropped back on the owner, and the costs would have been significant.”

Mrs Middleton said the insurance industry is still absorbing the impact of this judgement, and she believes “it will be tested again, and the next case will probably be the telling one”.

“Each case is judged individually but this is a stepping stone, I think,” she said. “It’s questioning strict liability, which I think is good.

She added that horse owners should also check their livery yards have appropriate liability insurance, which is not a legal requirement but would also have covered costs in a case such as this.

For this case, case law from Mirvahedy v Henley, the owners were found strictly liable for the horses' damage, despite not doing anything wrong in that they had left the horses securely fenced. The horses had escaped a securely fenced field with a wooden fence and electric wire addition. They then ran some distance before actively crashed into the car, rather than the car hitting a stationary horse. The owners were liable.

I would say a horse reversing into a kicking a car is more like the Mirvahedy v Henley case where strict liability was found. The car was stationary.

That is even without having to prove any type of wrong doing by rider/owner or employee.

The fact that the employee volunteered that the horse was 'in training' would indicate to me that the horse was not fully trained and reliable on the road. How a driver casually passing could be expected to know that, I do not know. The onus is on the rider to control the horse. The onus is on the employer to make safe working practices. The liability may still rest with the owner as strict liability for the horse reversing into and kicking a stationary car.

If what the car driver says is correct, and can be proved on dash cam, I can't see how they can be liable! I believe a horse reversing and kicking would fulfil the 'the animal must be shown to have a dangerous behavioural characteristic, which may only be seen at particular times or in particular circumstances' part to ensure strict liability from the owner, if the owner can be identified. I'd still include the rider and employer though, as they may also have been negligent.

 

[Gloi]

Years ago I damaged a parked car with my pony and trap. Pony spooked into it. My BHS insurance paid out for it.

 

[Exasperated]

It’s a little puzzling that you ‘had stopped to thank the rider for pulling aside’. This wouldn’t be the usual reaction to meeting a horse on the roadway.
It looks like the rider was dealing with a young horse in traffic, so she stepped out of your way, and was probably wishing you’d just carry on and get the car away so she could settle the horse again.
Might have contributed to what happened?

Should be grateful for a driver who does slow down, even stops, when there is an obviously inexperienced / uncertain horse being ridden along the road.
If that horse had kicked into a moving vehicle, chances of flesh & blood remaining undamaged are far lower.
Thank goodness it was only the car!
Sorry for the OP’s inconvenience, the Mirvahedy case law applies here, and if it turns out to be riding school owned without public liability insurance, their problems have only just started.