Suing an owner for injury to rider

[criso]

It's pretty obvious that with those injures, she won't be able to work for a long time and is entitled some sort of insurance pay out to live / get treatment. It's not so much about who was to blame (it does seem to be a horrible accident) but whether she was a self-employed freelance groom or employed by the owner so should the payment come from her personal injury insurance (if she has it) or his employer's liability insurance. It's probably the insurance companies pushing it to court rather than the people involved.

According to the article she was employed but her employer is arguing she took the horse hunting in her own time not as part of her job. She says she was asked to get the horse ready for the season for his son to ride so was part of her duties.

 

[Annagain]

According to the article she was employed but her employer is arguing she took the horse hunting in her own time not as part of her job. She says she was asked to get the horse ready for the season for his son to ride so was part of her duties.

That's a more tricky one to sort out, I can see why it's ended up in court. Her word against his I'd imagine.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

It does make me worry a bit though. I have a freelancer who works at the yard riding my pony 3 times a week due to lockdown as I am reducing number of visits to the yard to 3 times a week. He is 19 and fairly quiet and she is an AI so much better rider than me. However there is a risk with any horse that someone riding could get a serious injury especially if the horse had a heart attack.

Did you check that she has a good level of insurance before asking her to ride your horse? If not you should.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

That's a more tricky one to sort out, I can see why it's ended up in court. Her word against his I'd imagine.

Except that the employer obviously agreed to her taking the horse and presumably the horsebox, hunting. He can hardly say that he didn't consent to it, which makes him/his insurance company liable.

 

[SEL]

This is why it's important to have legal cover somewhere in your insurance portfolio (BHS, House insurance etc). Somewhere along the line after an awful accident like this you'll need legal advice and that never comes cheap.

I can't work out if the rider didn't have any insurance - hence the claim against her employer - or if this is 2 insurance companies having a splat trying to prove the other needs to pick up the bill.

I seem to remember an owner got successfully sued for damages after her horse bolted with a teenager and caused life changing injuries so there might be precedent

 

[Squeak]

So what insurance should we have in place as horse owners and riders?

As riders I'm guessing our own personal accident and Income protection etc.

As owners would third party and public liability cover us for this?

 

[Gingerwitch]

So what insurance should we have in place as horse owners and riders?

As riders I'm guessing our own personal accident and Income protection etc.

As owners would third party and public liability cover us for this?

I think it's a minefield and will depend if payment or payment in lieu is implied, or if owner has made a challengable statement or blatantly lied.
I would expect costs where riding is included to be going up.
For those riders that ride horses for the vets or work with problem horses I dread to think what insurance premiums could be demanded.
If it's an employers horse I assume section 3 would apply to acts and omissions to others not on their employ..... so horse goes up and lands on someone on the yard delivering hay.... would the HSE class this ad an industrial injury?

 

[Annagain]

Except that the employer obviously agreed to her taking the horse and presumably the horsebox, hunting. He can hardly say that he didn't consent to it, which makes him/his insurance company liable.

That's the issue though isn't it, whether he consented to her doing it in her free time at her own risk or whether he asked her to do it as part of her job? These lines are often blurred when someone's job could also be construed as their hobby and I doubt anything will be in writing (unless there are text messages saying "Will you / Can I take x hunting on Saturday please") so it's a very tricky one to prove either way.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

I think it's a minefield and will depend if payment or payment in lieu is implied, or if owner has made a challengable statement or blatantly lied.
I would expect costs where riding is included to be going up.
For those riders that ride horses for the vets or work with problem horses I dread to think what insurance premiums could be demanded.
If it's an employers horse I assume section 3 would apply to acts and omissions to others not on their employ..... so horse goes up and lands on someone on the yard delivering hay.... would the HSE class this ad an industrial injury?

Yes HSE would consider that to be an industrial injury

 

[Pearlsasinger]

That's the issue though isn't it, whether he consented to her doing it in her free time at her own risk or whether he asked her to do it as part of her job? These lines are often blurred when someone's job could also be construed as their hobby and I doubt anything will be in writing (unless there are text messages saying "Will you / Can I take x hunting on Saturday please") so it's a very tricky one to prove either way.

Rider apparently says that the employer's son asked her to take the horse hunting in a whatsApp message. I must admit that I am assuming that the horse lived at the employer's premises, if she worked for him on a livery yard owned by someone else, it could be different. But the employer must have consented to her taking the horse and the horsebox out of the yard, otherwise it would have been reported stolen. I am guessing that this case is 2 insurance companies fighting it out in court.
Everyone should ensure that anyone they ask to handle/ride a horse for them has adequate insurance and PL insurance themselves. this is why 'cash in hand' jobs are never a good idea, because you can be pretty sure that an employer who doesn't pay NI doesn't have employers' insurance.

TBF very few people who work with horses want to ride the employer's horses on their day off. If they have horses of their own, they want to spend time with them, or they want to spend time doing something different.

 

[Winters100]

Did you check that she has a good level of insurance before asking her to ride your horse? If not you should.

But does it actually help you if the freelancer has insurance? Because surely the issue of liability is not decided by the existence or lack of an insurance policy? If they are insured, as I understand it, it simply means that they get paid by their insurance company who will then be the ones to recover the money from you. For example if you have fully comprehensive car insurance and an accident is caused by a driver who is uninsured then your own policy pays out, but they will seek to recover their outlay from the other driver.

Now I think about it should one always sign a document with any pro stating what they have been told about the behaviour of the horse, that the rider confirms that they are competent, and that the owner is not liable for accidents?

On the other hand a freelancer is self employed, and you would not expect to be liable, for example, for an accident that an electrician had while working in your house (unless of course it was caused by your own negligence).

Now I think about it I don't really think that the other party being insured helps the horse owner, in my opinion all the owner would need would be a third party liability policy which included any liability arising from others riding the horse.

Anyone who is good on insurance matters have any opinion on this?

 

[criso]

So I have public liability insurance with my BHS membership. Under exclusions is an employee while working for me. Would that exclusion apply to a freelancer who I 'employ' to ride my horse or only actual employees.

 

[Tiddlypom]

So I have public liability insurance with my BHS membership. Under exclusions is an employee while working for me. Would that exclusion apply to a freelancer who I 'employ' to ride my horse or only actual employees.

If payment is involved, then BHS Gold does not cover you.

I had presumed erroneously for years that BHS Gold did cover the occasional holiday care payments that I made to a local uni student. Luckily, nothing untoward happened.

I rang SEIB, and they said that anyone coming in to look after my horses on an occasional basis should have their own cover.

 

[criso]

If payment is involved, then BHS Gold does not cover you.

I had presumed erroneously for years that BHS Gold did cover the occasional holiday care payments that I made to a local uni student. Luckily, nothing untoward happened.

I rang SEIB, and they said that anyone coming in to look after my horses on an occasional basis should have their own cover.

That's what I thought and was following on from Winter100 post that the owner should have their own insurance.

 

[Littlewills]

I think it's a minefield and will depend if payment or payment in lieu is implied, or if owner has made a challengable statement or blatantly lied.
I would expect costs where riding is included to be going up.
For those riders that ride horses for the vets or work with problem horses I dread to think what insurance premiums could be demanded.
If it's an employers horse I assume section 3 would apply to acts and omissions to others not on their employ..... so horse goes up and lands on someone on the yard delivering hay.... would the HSE class this ad an industrial injury?

Why are you assuming this hasnt happened before? It has. This has made the press because of the names involved

 

[Rowreach]

If payment is involved, then BHS Gold does not cover you.

I had presumed erroneously for years that BHS Gold did cover the occasional holiday care payments that I made to a local uni student. Luckily, nothing untoward happened.

I rang SEIB, and they said that anyone coming in to look after my horses on an occasional basis should have their own cover.

I used to have all my insurances with NFU, house, yard, business, PL, EL, PA and a horse policy. At one point I was doing all the work myself and the NFU chap told me that if I had someone coming in on an ad hoc basis to do my horses (not clients'), they would be covered under my house policy, much the same as if you were employing a cleaner. I never tested that one out, and made sure I had the necessary EL cover in place. I certainly wouldn't rely on a freelancer having their own cover, especially if something happens for which a negligence claim can be made.

Going back to the point of the thread, many years ago I was riding a horse for a client, which had come on trial from a dealer. The horse kicked someone on the ground, seriously injuring her. I would have been perfectly happy for her to claim, and in fact I was covered under three different policies, but, she was advised that since I hadn't been negligent (if anything, she was), she wouldn't have been successful, and that also all three insurers would actually have pursued the dealer under his insurance if in fact a claim had been viable.

Insurance companies generally will do absolutely anything not to pay out.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

But does it actually help you if the freelancer has insurance? Because surely the issue of liability is not decided by the existence or lack of an insurance policy? If they are insured, as I understand it, it simply means that they get paid by their insurance company who will then be the ones to recover the money from you. For example if you have fully comprehensive car insurance and an accident is caused by a driver who is uninsured then your own policy pays out, but they will seek to recover their outlay from the other driver.

Now I think about it should one always sign a document with any pro stating what they have been told about the behaviour of the horse, that the rider confirms that they are competent, and that the owner is not liable for accidents?

On the other hand a freelancer is self employed, and you would not expect to be liable, for example, for an accident that an electrician had while working in your house (unless of course it was caused by your own negligence).

Now I think about it I don't really think that the other party being insured helps the horse owner, in my opinion all the owner would need would be a third party liability policy which included any liability arising from others riding the horse.

Anyone who is good on insurance matters have any opinion on this?

Freelancers in the situation that the poster wrote about will almost inevitably be self-employed. I would be very surprised if anyone is claiming that the employer in the case cited was negligent, how could that be? It seems to me that this case hinges on the 'was she riding in the course of her work?' And it also seems very difficult to say/prove that she wasn't.

 

[Goldenstar]

I have cover for free lancers from the NFU .Its on a policy that covers all people you might have working on house like this so gardeners the window cleaner part time domestic staff ( I wish ) .
It of course would only cover me if I was negligent but that’s always the case with liability cover .

 

[Supertrooper]

I don’t understand how a horse that was dying was being naughty??!!

My first horse died of a heart attack, luckily I realised something was wrong and had already got off him before he collapsed but he was thrashing for a time before he passed. I had to be pinned up against a wall by my friend to stop me getting injured

Awful she was injured but I don’t see how it could have been predicted

 

[Elf On A Shelf]

I don’t understand how a horse that was dying was being naughty??!!

My first horse died of a heart attack, luckily I realised something was wrong and had already got off him before he collapsed but he was thrashing for a time before he passed. I had to be pinned up against a wall by my friend to stop me getting injured

Awful she was injured but I don’t see how it could have been predicted

Unless she didn't know/realise it was dying. Some people really aren't very perceptive or pay much attention to their mounts.

 

[Wishfilly]

My understanding is that if she had insurance and claimed on that, the insurance might claim against the employer etc if they felt there was a case to be made. So I'm not sure it's enough to ensure anyone who rides/handles your horse has insurance. Doubly so if you are employing them.

It sounds odd that the employer has said she was not working when she was riding his horse- presumably with permission! I wonder if the son asked her to ride the horse and she felt she couldn't say no, but was not officially being paid?

Anyway, I would imagine she is suing out of desperation, rather than greed. Her injuries sound awful and it's likely she won't be able to work for a long time.

 

[Supertrooper]

Unless she didn't know/realise it was dying. Some people really aren't very perceptive or pay much attention to their mounts.

True, just makes me cross that a horse that is dying is branded as naughty but may be how its been reported

 

[HashRouge]

My understanding is that if she had insurance and claimed on that, the insurance might claim against the employer etc if they felt there was a case to be made. So I'm not sure it's enough to ensure anyone who rides/handles your horse has insurance. Doubly so if you are employing them.

It sounds odd that the employer has said she was not working when she was riding his horse- presumably with permission! I wonder if the son asked her to ride the horse and she felt she couldn't say no, but was not officially being paid?

Anyway, I would imagine she is suing out of desperation, rather than greed. Her injuries sound awful and it's likely she won't be able to work for a long time.

Yes same, I feel really bad for her. And frankly, £100,000 is really not that much if she is going to be incapacitated for a long time!

I am curious about why this is in court rather than being dealt with by insurance companies. I do wonder whether she doesn't have her own insurance and the employer's insurance company has decided they're not paying out, hence ending up in court. I don't have a good understanding of how these things work through.

 

[Amun]

It's not just in the fail though and that worries me even more for potential consequences for this industry. Imagine you move yards and new groom is turning your horse out. He stands up waving to the clouds and falls over hitting new groom. Your Facebook feed quotes that he reared once before (maybe playing in the field after being on box rest) your now potentially on the hook to be sued. Or your ri hops on your pony and goes over, again were potentially liable.

But shouldn't this be covered by employer's insurance? accidents can happen when you work around horses so I would expect good insurance is a must have. If I let's say slip on a wet floor in our office, it would be my employers responsibility. Though this case is difficult as the employer claims she was not at work. Though I wonder why she was on the horse then? When I was a teen and I "worked" in a small local yard in exchange for riding, YO condition was I had to have my own insurance specifically for horse riding injuries (different country though). He absolutely wouldn't allow me on the horse without that. So reading only the article, I would say it's her employer's responsibility.

 

[criso]

It says the horse had a history of being tricky the first few outings and then settled for the rest of the season hence why she was asked to take him out before the son rode him. The description doesn't sound like one episode but a few incidents before the one where he reared and went over backwards.

 

[Orangehorse]

Horses will sometimes rear if they are in trouble. There was a horse taken to its owner's wedding at the church and was standing by the church gate when it suddenly reared up and dropped dead on the ground. My mother-in-law was there, so first hand account.

 

[Orangehorse]

Every day all over the country people are riding horses owned by others and 99.9% of the time nothing happens, they ride, they fall off, they get stepped on, etc. they get back on and carry on another day.

It is that 0.1% of cases that happen that make your blood run cold as you realise what could happen, not only to the injured rider but to the unfortunate owner too.

 

[Sleighfarer]

The Mail is taking a bit of a battering here, but it is a straightforward court report and I can't see anything wrong with it. It says she is suing the owner under the 1971 Animals Act, which I'm a bit baffled by. It covers 'liability for damage done by animals'.

ETA A quick google suggests that suing under this act means the claimant doesn't have to prove negligence; the owner of the animal will be strictly liable if certain behaviours of the animal fulfil certain criteria.

 

[Honey08]

Yes same, I feel really bad for her. And frankly, £100,000 is really not that much if she is going to be incapacitated for a long time!

I am curious about why this is in court rather than being dealt with by insurance companies. I do wonder whether she doesn't have her own insurance and the employer's insurance company has decided they're not paying out, hence ending up in court. I don't have a good understanding of how these things work through.

I am actually thinking the opposite- that the employer might be the one without proper insurance and that’s why they are trying to prove it was not work related. You’d have to be a pretty horrible employer to have your employee badly injured when your horse dies horribly on top of them and to go to court to try and prevent them getting any money to help them through their (probably long) recovery...

Sometimes we are our own worst enemies. In these types of jobs we become friendly with the people we work for and do favours /are flexible because of it. In my last job with horses I was contracted to work Mon - Friday plus half days Saturdays, but I was quite often asked to go hunting with the owner to straighten out a horse he was struggling with, or to go and view a new horse with him, or take his daughter to a show. All these things were not at times I was contracted to work and there would have been nothing in writing if anything had happened..

 

[HashRouge]

I am actually thinking the opposite- that the employer might be the one without proper insurance and that’s why they are trying to prove it was not work related. You’d have to be a pretty horrible employer to have your employee badly injured when your horse dies horribly on top of them and to go to court to try and prevent them getting any money to help them through their (probably long) recovery...

Sometimes we are our own worst enemies. In these types of jobs we become friendly with the people we work for and do favours /are flexible because of it. In my last job with horses I was contracted to work Mon - Friday plus half days Saturdays, but I was quite often asked to go hunting with the owner to straighten out a horse he was struggling with, or to go and view a new horse with him, or take his daughter to a show. All these things were not at times I was contracted to work and there would have been nothing in writing if anything had happened..

Yes you could be right - that makes more sense than the scenario I'd come up with!