Suing culture- it has to stop

Spottyappy

Spottyappy

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 September 2008
Messages
3,611
Location
Home counties
Visit site
Following on from Kelpie's thread yesterday, here,
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=382326
it didn't attract many replies. I have retitled it,and am hoping people will join me and Kelpie in signing this and putting a stop to the suing culture in general, but in particular to help stop the continual threat to riding schools whiohc are closing at an alarming rate because of it.
Please sign up here:
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/resto...-waiver-consent-form-for-hazardous-activities
 
I am so with you on this one.

I used to be quite 'generous' in my time introducing youngsters to horses, always in a controlled way, and if a child was quite a good rider but couldn't afford their own horse, letting them progress on one of my horses.

Now, unless I truly trust the parents I won't let their children anywhere near my horses. That means that the poor kids who have useless parents have one more thing denied to them.
 
I've commented on the other thread explaining why I don't agree.

The law already takes into account the normal risks of the sport and will only compensate a claimant where there has been negligence. My boss is a bit of an expert in sports claims, and very few result from riding accidents, more from football, and golf, bizzarely!
 
Katt said:
I've commented on the other thread explaining why I don't agree.

The law already takes into account the normal risks of the sport and will only compensate a claimant where there has been negligence. My boss is a bit of an expert in sports claims, and very few result from riding accidents, more from football, and golf, bizzarely!
Click to expand...

The thing is, though, Katt, is that while in theory the law should take account of the point you mention, if you look at the insurance premiums that riding schools, etc, are having to pay, surely there is something amiss with the law/ there are more claims than you might think? Otherwise why are the premiums so high?
 
The issue is the insurance companies themselves and legal fees. Often it will cost them more to employ lawyers to deal with a claim than it will to just pay out early. This means that as far more claims are settled, unwarranted claims are paid out. You then get lawyers who specialise in claims in that area that who rather than looking at whether there is a good case "in law" they compare to others that have been paid out by that company before. TBH it needs the insurance companies to invest in fighting a handful of unwarranted claims to prove that they are not an easy target. At the end of the day most insurance companies (with the exception of mutual societies) are a business interested in generating large profits for their shareholders and six figure bonuses for the men at the top. Sadly it is the consumer who pays for this...
 
Kelpie said:
The thing is, though, Katt, is that while in theory the law should take account of the point you mention, if you look at the insurance premiums that riding schools, etc, are having to pay, surely there is something amiss with the law/ there are more claims than you might think? Otherwise why are the premiums so high?
Click to expand...


The law does indeed take into account the points I mention, the caselaw proves this. But as cyberhorse points out some claims that are unmeritorious are paid on commercial grounds which hikes costs. You can't prevent someone making a claim to "try it on" even with the waiver because everyone has a right to "access to justice" which means bringing a claim if they think it is justified, it is for the court to decide whether the claim succeeds or not and no one should be preventing claims from being made in the first place. There are things that can be done if these claims aren't genuine, they can be struck out with costs penalties on an application if they are completely without merit or vexatious. Fraudulent claims are also being dealt with strictly with criminal proceedings sometimes being taken up as well as costs being recovered.

The thing with insurance premiums is that they don't just take into account negligence claims for clients falling off horses. They take into account all the risks of the business and often insure not just for public liability but also for employers liability (which is compulsory) and may also cover things like buildings insurance, insurance for equipment, and possibly things like business interruption or vets fees etc.

Sadly riding schools are not the best businesses at dealing with health and safety. If a business has a good record and goes on to show that it takes health and safety seriously and minimises risks then the premiums will decrease. There are examples of other businesses taking this sort of approach and drastically reducing their insurance costs, admittedly this is easier for bigger businesses as they have more negotiating power with their insurers.

Quite seriously the majority of claims on an EL/PL policy for a riding school would almost certainly relate to employees injuring themselves (not necessarily on horseback, but tripping, lifting etc), the public having accidents that don't relate to riding, and accidents involvimg horses where the claimant isn't the rider, such as RTAs or straying incidents.

There are a lot of risks involved in running a riding school and the risk of claims has to be reflected in insurance policies. Most riding schools ask you to sign an acknowledgement that riding is a risk sport, and the courts generally are more forgiving where "desireable activities" are involved so they concsiously consider whether their decision might make participation more difficult. But the fact remains that if riding schools behave irresponsibly the injured person should have some comeback.

If you want to start a campaign, reform of the animals act which confers strict liability on the owner of an animal would be a better place to start. This means that insurers are settling lots of claims for damage caused by straying animals for example where the owner could have done nothing more to prevent the accident occuring.
 
I know what you're saying, Katt, but if people actually thought the waivers that they signed were enforceable, wouldn't that nip any ideas they might have in the budd to "try it on" to sue, where really they should just take their own risks?

Also, for example, if you ride on an XC practice course, most courses will have you sign a waiver but of course if someone has an accident, the validity of that waiver can be called into question. Unless there was something stupidly dangerous about the set-up of the XC course, then I for one know that if I ride an XC practice course and I fall off and hurt myself, then that's my fault (hence why I would be happy to sign a liability waiver and stick by it). However, I'm not sure everyone thinks like that?

There are many cases where service providers/ landowners ask riders to sign liability waivers anyway, so I'm not sure it's extra bureaucracy - in fact, if it stops inappropriate claims, isn't it less bureaucracy?

I just think it would be appropriate for these to be properly enforceable.


(p.s... Katt, I do sympathise also with what you say about strict liability for animals - but I'm not quite sure I can get my head around how some situations would work without it.....?... I guess that is another thread in itself!)
 
Kelpie said:
I know what you're saying, Katt, but if people actually thought the waivers that they signed were enforceable, wouldn't that nip any ideas they might have in the budd to "try it on" to sue, where really they should just take their own risks?

Also, for example, if you ride on an XC practice course, most courses will have you sign a waiver but of course if someone has an accident, the validity of that waiver can be called into question. Unless there was something stupidly dangerous about the set-up of the XC course, then I for one know that if I ride an XC practice course and I fall off and hurt myself, then that's my fault (hence why I would be happy to sign a liability waiver and stick by it). However, I'm not sure everyone thinks like that?

There are many cases where service providers/ landowners ask riders to sign liability waivers anyway, so I'm not sure it's extra bureaucracy - in fact, if it stops inappropriate claims, isn't it less bureaucracy?

I just think it would be appropriate for these to be properly enforceable.


(p.s... Katt, I do sympathise also with what you say about strict liability for animals - but I'm not quite sure I can get my head around how some situations would work without it.....?... I guess that is another thread in itself!)
Click to expand...


I don't understand what you are saying now, you seem to be arguing against your own point!

Every riding school/trakking centre I have been to in the last 10 years has made me sign a waiver/disclaimer and has displayed a sign saying riding is a risk sport and they cannot be held responsible for any accidents.

These are not legally enforceable. It is a fundamental legal principle that you cannot disclaim your legal responsibilities. Otherwise you'd be signing a disclaimer everywhere you went and there would be no incentive for any business or organisation to improve their standards. Why make builders wear hard hats and go to the expense of buying them when you can just make them sign a waiver that says they can't sue if a brick lands on their head????

BUT these waivers at riding schools, indoor climbing walls, sports centres etc highlight the risk to participants and "discourages" them from thinking that they can sue for anything.

If the proprietor has been genuinely negligent they can still sue.

So what you are arguing for seems to be the position as the law stands at the moment! How would you change it?
 
Kelpie said:
(p.s... Katt, I do sympathise also with what you say about strict liability for animals - but I'm not quite sure I can get my head around how some situations would work without it.....?... I guess that is another thread in itself!)
Click to expand...

With regard to strict liability I think it is unfair.

Basically if your horse escapes its field and damages a parked car the owner of the car can sue you and you are strictly liable under the animals act. Fair enough if your fencing was inadequate (but that would be covered by the law of negligence anyway) but under the animals act you would still be liable if your horses were securely locked in their field but had been released by vandals. How is that fair? You are no more at fault that the owner of the parked car. All you have done is been unfortunate enough to own a horse and be in the wrong place at the wrong time, the car owner is also simply unfortunate.

Strict liability applies in other areas too, such as defective work equipment. The famous case is Stark -v- Royal Mail, a postie fell of his bike, he fell off because there was a defect with the gears, the bike was well maintained, had been inspected and nothing wrong with it. The defect could not have been detected before the accident and Royal Mail could not have done any more to protect their employee but because of strict liability they were liable to pay his claim.

Some people would like to bring it in so that car drivers are automatically liable if they are in a collision with a pedestrian or cyclist :eek: I hope that never happens as I have dealt with several claims in the past where the pedestrian was at fault, and we have successfully defended. Why should a motor insurer pay out in those circumstances?????
 
Katt said:
I don't understand what you are saying now, you seem to be arguing against your own point!

Every riding school/trakking centre I have been to in the last 10 years has made me sign a waiver/disclaimer and has displayed a sign saying riding is a risk sport and they cannot be held responsible for any accidents.

These are not legally enforceable. It is a fundamental legal principle that you cannot disclaim your legal responsibilities. Otherwise you'd be signing a disclaimer everywhere you went and there would be no incentive for any business or organisation to improve their standards. Why make builders wear hard hats and go to the expense of buying them when you can just make them sign a waiver that says they can't sue if a brick lands on their head????

BUT these waivers at riding schools, indoor climbing walls, sports centres etc highlight the risk to participants and "discourages" them from thinking that they can sue for anything.

If the proprietor has been genuinely negligent they can still sue.

So what you are arguing for seems to be the position as the law stands at the moment! How would you change it?
Click to expand...

The point is that if an individual signs a liability waiver, I would like to be able to see that liability waiver stand up as enforceable (whereas at the moment it is probably not). (as a point of detail, perhaps with an exclusion for gross negligence - the proposal is set out in more detail on the Government liberties site link). Not quite sure why that's arguing against my own point.... kinda thought that was my point....
 
Kelpie said:
The thing is, though, Katt, is that while in theory the law should take account of the point you mention, if you look at the insurance premiums that riding schools, etc, are having to pay, surely there is something amiss with the law/ there are more claims than you might think? Otherwise why are the premiums so high?
Click to expand...


And how exactly was it negligence for one of your liveries to go to catch her horse without a hat on and get her head kicked in? She was 13, the responsibility for whether she wears a hat or not rests with her parents, not a livery yard owner. It is not normal, or even common practice to put on a hat to catch a horse. In 35 years I've never seen anyone do it. The payout was £2.1million by a Court Order.
 
cptrayes said:
And how exactly was it negligence for one of your liveries to go to catch her horse without a hat on and get her head kicked in? She was 13, the responsibility for whether she wears a hat or not rests with her parents, not a livery yard owner. It is not normal, or even common practice to put on a hat to catch a horse. In 35 years I've never seen anyone do it. The payout was £2.1million by a Court Order.
Click to expand...

This is the problem. It may well be the parents responsibility, but they will pass the responsibility to the Yard Owner, and the Courts generally agree with the Parents.
 
Ohh look,a nice comfy fence ;)

I don't think I would ever consider suing,I still belive in accidents :p and we all know horse riding is a high risk sport yet choose to get on anyway.
However,there will be times when a RS IS at fault and should be held to task(faulty/damaged tack ect).
 
I think anyone making a claim should be made to pay an 'excess' for want of a better description - and a high one at that, to try and stop those who start a claim procedure for little things.

I have my cars, horses, tack etc all insured. In 10 years, I have never made a claim, but have watched my policies rise in cost despite that. I see my neighbours making claims for vets fees of £75 over the excess, I see my neighbours claiming off their car insurance for stone chips/tiny scrapes.

Those things are just life, often sh*t timing, but life. Insurance is for those things that are out of the ordinary, colic ops/cars being written off.

If you had a genuine case, the excess wouldn't be an issue as you would get it back with the pay out, if you don't have a genuine case, you would be out of pocket and hopefully stop all the silly little claims.
 
Katt, I take it you are one of the "personal injury" lawyers who makes their living by these sort of suing claims? Have a friend who does the same, but even she says that the MAJORITY of the small calims that are settled for £5k or less should NEVER even be allowed to get that far.That is because the insurance firms pay up for fear of it costing more than this in LAWYER'S fees.
Crazymare, your idea is good, but the law firms who make their living this way- driving riding schools and other out of business-would be likely to veto it, and the insurance companies are too afraid of them, IMHO, to back it too.
The insurance companies will wriggle out of their obligations if they can(I once had a car damaged by a horse the owner had tied up in the wrong place-it pulled back, taking the rail with it and smashing into my car in its panic.The insurance wouldn;t pay because " the HORSE wouldn't admit liability":eek:
I still think people should sign the enforable waiver on the freedom site, becasue the only winners by NOT having this are the LAWYERS!!
 
cptrayes said:
And how exactly was it negligence for one of your liveries to go to catch her horse without a hat on and get her head kicked in? She was 13, the responsibility for whether she wears a hat or not rests with her parents, not a livery yard owner. It is not normal, or even common practice to put on a hat to catch a horse. In 35 years I've never seen anyone do it. The payout was £2.1million by a Court Order.
Click to expand...

Yikes! - that's ridiculous. On what grounds did the court blame the YO?!?

Makes the case for YO's not having minors on their yards, eh? (not very constructive for kids wanting to own horses tho....)
 
Kelpie said:
The point is that if an individual signs a liability waiver, I would like to be able to see that liability waiver stand up as enforceable (whereas at the moment it is probably not). (as a point of detail, perhaps with an exclusion for gross negligence - the proposal is set out in more detail on the Government liberties site link). Not quite sure why that's arguing against my own point.... kinda thought that was my point....
Click to expand...

Because you seem to want the law to stay as it is.

You can't sue unless there is negligence. A waiver does not have any force where there is negligence.

I think the proposal on the government liberties site fails to understand the law as it stands.
 
Spottyappy said:
Katt, I take it you are one of the "personal injury" lawyers who makes their living by these sort of suing claims? Have a friend who does the same, but even she says that the MAJORITY of the small calims that are settled for £5k or less should NEVER even be allowed to get that far.That is because the insurance firms pay up for fear of it costing more than this in LAWYER'S fees.
Crazymare, your idea is good, but the law firms who make their living this way- driving riding schools and other out of business-would be likely to veto it, and the insurance companies are too afraid of them, IMHO, to back it too.
The insurance companies will wriggle out of their obligations if they can(I once had a car damaged by a horse the owner had tied up in the wrong place-it pulled back, taking the rail with it and smashing into my car in its panic.The insurance wouldn;t pay because " the HORSE wouldn't admit liability":eek:
I still think people should sign the enforable waiver on the freedom site, becasue the only winners by NOT having this are the LAWYERS!!
Click to expand...

No I actually defend these claims, so I work to prevent them.

Believe me though often we have to pay out because the business (and I have never dealt with a claim relating to a riding school despite working in part for the insurers who underwrite the BHS policy) has not done everything it could have done to prevent a claim, including cheap easy measures.

I walk around the riding school where I ride and I can see a multitude of things that *could* give rise to a claim which are tolerated and would not be tolerated in many other businesses, riding schools could really help themselves.

We all sign waivers before riding at that riding school, but the law states that you cannot sign away your rights to claim for negligence.
 
cptrayes said:
And how exactly was it negligence for one of your liveries to go to catch her horse without a hat on and get her head kicked in? She was 13, the responsibility for whether she wears a hat or not rests with her parents, not a livery yard owner. It is not normal, or even common practice to put on a hat to catch a horse. In 35 years I've never seen anyone do it. The payout was £2.1million by a Court Order.
Click to expand...


I'd be interested to read the case, can you give me the citation??
 
Sorry for going on about this one but I feel quite strongly about it, because there is so much misunderstanding about the state of the law of negligence. There are cases which are taken on by no win no fee firms which are weak and are only taken in the hope that a payment will be made on commercial grounds, there are also growing numbers of fraudulent claims which my firm is at the forefront of taking action against. I am all for reducing the numbers of ill founded claims, but we shouldn't be tying businesses up in extra red tape or preventing individuals from making legitimate claims.

As an example (entirely fictitious):

I'm a non-horsey adult and I take my child to a BHS approved riding school for a lead rein lesson. The child is fitted with a hat, and assigned a quiet lead rein pony, it is legged up on to the pony by a saturday helper, the stirrups are adjusted and the child is shown how to hold the reins. The lesson starts with a qualified instructor. After 10 minutes they have a trot. As they trot the saddle slips, the pony panics, bucks, gets away from the helper leading it. The child is dragged and trodden on and sustains serious injuries. The investigation shows that neither the helper or the instructor checked the girth after the child was mounted, or again once they had walked around for a few minutes.

Should I as a fictional parent say, oh well accidents happen never mind, and put up with the consequences of that serious accident, which may have long term implications for my whole family? Or should i say that was an entirely preventable accident which should not have happened and make a claim which will help me and my family cope with the consequences of that accident by providing funds for treatment and paying for me to take unpaid leave while my child needs round the clock care?

It would be a different matter if the child had wobbled off because they were an unbalanced beginner, or if it was an experienced rider who should have checked their own girth.
 
SusannaF said:
Katt, here's a link. The original Horse and Hound story is no longer up.
Click to expand...

Sorry there isn't a citation for the full case report there and it isn't really possible to see from that account why liability was found against the yard owner.

I suspect that it may have been under the animals act rather than negligence though, as then the keeper of the animal would be liable for its actions. But without access to the judgement I can't tell and that is part of the problem, these cases are reported in the press with insufficient information and people get the wrong impression about the state of the law.
 
Katt said:
Sorry for going on about this one but I feel quite strongly about it, because there is so much misunderstanding about the state of the law of negligence. There are cases which are taken on by no win no fee firms which are weak and are only taken in the hope that a payment will be made on commercial grounds, there are also growing numbers of fraudulent claims which my firm is at the forefront of taking action against. I am all for reducing the numbers of ill founded claims, but we shouldn't be tying businesses up in extra red tape or preventing individuals from making legitimate claims.

As an example (entirely fictitious):

I'm a non-horsey adult and I take my child to a BHS approved riding school for a lead rein lesson. The child is fitted with a hat, and assigned a quiet lead rein pony, it is legged up on to the pony by a saturday helper, the stirrups are adjusted and the child is shown how to hold the reins. The lesson starts with a qualified instructor. After 10 minutes they have a trot. As they trot the saddle slips, the pony panics, bucks, gets away from the helper leading it. The child is dragged and trodden on and sustains serious injuries. The investigation shows that neither the helper or the instructor checked the girth after the child was mounted, or again once they had walked around for a few minutes.

Should I as a fictional parent say, oh well accidents happen never mind, and put up with the consequences of that serious accident, which may have long term implications for my whole family? Or should i say that was an entirely preventable accident which should not have happened and make a claim which will help me and my family cope with the consequences of that accident by providing funds for treatment and paying for me to take unpaid leave while my child needs round the clock care?

It would be a different matter if the child had wobbled off because they were an unbalanced beginner, or if it was an experienced rider who should have checked their own girth.
Click to expand...

With regard to your example, well, I would expect any enforceable waiver to have a thought through approach. So clearly a beginner cannot accept quite the same responsibiliteis as a more advanced rider (which I realise is present in some degree in our law as it stands at the moment, but I just don't think our law is clear enough/ goes far enough).

"There are cases which are taken on by no win no fee firms which are weak and are only taken in the hope that a payment will be made on commercial grounds, there are also growing numbers of fraudulent claims which my firm is at the forefront of taking action against."


But that's the thing - if people actually did think that the waivers they sign were enforceable, wouldn't it stop so many of these fraudulent claims/ claims taken on a no win no fee basis just to see if some money will be given out by the insurance company?

Also, I'm sure that I don't need to tell you that the definition of negligence is a thorny issue at best - for example, if I, as a competent (... for argument's sake ;) ) rider have a lesson and I hadn't checked my own girth as I'd assumed that the horse tacked up and presented to me had already had it's girth tightened, and then I fall and have an accident, is it my fault for not checking the girth or is it the riding school's fault for not tightening it? Quite frankly I would say it should be my fault because a competent rider ought to know better and should check their own tack - but I'm sure that there would be a fair few lawyers that would take a case against the riding school. Ideally an enforceable waiver would be coupled with clearer guidance on what does/ does not constitute a negligent occurance that could be used to void the waiver (or perhaps it would be better to have a definition of gross negligence, rather than just plain negligence for this purpose).

Also, in the case of XC practice courses in particular, for example, there is the interaction with the Occupier's Liability Act and the Unfair Contracts Act. I would have thought that an enforceable waiver would be a good idea to cut through more legal wranglings that might ensue should a litigious type have an accident out on XC practice - particularly if coupled with a sensible definition of negligence/ gross negligence.
 
The theory of people thinking a waiver is enforcable rather depends on Joe Horserider being a bit thick really, doesn't it. You cannot waive against negligence, and if you are trying to suggest a waiver that implies you can, well that is just silly IMO, and won't be in any way effective, as any lawyer worth their salt (and most intelligent members of the public) will know full well that the waiver is not valid. I have signed plenty of waivers which have not entirely legal clauses "I waive my right to sue any person that works here, even if the person is negligent" - such waivers exist plenty of places, but I don't know anyone dumb enough to believe them. As they are not enforcable, I have no issue signing them, but it doesn't mean I won't sue the heck out of them if their own actions cause me harm (usually, I just harm myself!).

Some years ago, I had an 'accident' riding, which was actually completely avoidable, but the 'instructor' made a serious error that resulted in serious injury to me. Back then, I was still at school, the NHS covered my medical bills, and the yard covered horse related costs. All it really cost me (my parents) was some clothing that had to be cut off and a hat that needed replacing anyway. As there was no real 'out of pocket' loss, and I made a full recovery, I didn't sue, but I would have been justified doing so for the 'pain and suffering' element.

As the law stands, you can't just sue (sucessfully) because you fall of a horse, there has to be 'fault', be that an unsuitable horse, bad facilities (like a jump breaking, or hole in the school floor), unsafe tack, staff who cannot perform their expected duties, etc. There isn't a reputable lawyer around who would file without the fault aspect being there, so no, it wouldn't stop any fradulant claims (besides which, fraudsters normally know their trade...)

In terms of beginners and advanced riders signing different forms, that brings you on to hugely dicey territory. Where legal forms are concerned, assume everyone is a moron and doesn't know better (otherwise the experienced client who 'waives' more in your example would just turn around and say the instructor was at fault for them not knowing the 'advanced' level of waiver).

In terms of the girth, the responsibility lies with the instructor. I would check not only girth, but the rest of the tack before we started (experienced clients were allowed to tack up, and more than once I found bits in backwards, the wrong saddle on a horse, etc) but I checked before the lessons, not hoped the clients knew what they darn well should have known.

When I worked with horses we have our fair share of accidents (we did a lot as a yard, SJing XC, hunting, fast hacking, young children, school groups etc - all the higher risk malarky!) and not once during those years did anyone have a claim for negligence that suceeded. If you abide by legislation, good practice, and have good staff there is no reason anyone should be able to bring a sucessful claim. What we SHOULD do to avoid the rising cost of insurance for decent riding schools, is get rid of those with no regard for safety.

PS re: the 13 year old, it was a while back I read about it, but I think it hinged on her being a minor and as such could not be aware of the risks she was assuming, but I may be incorrect.
 
I think many are missing the point here, it is the people who are claiming there was negligence, when there was not, other than their own possibly.Yes, these claims DO go through.
 
Donkeymad said:
I think many are missing the point here, it is the people who are claiming there was negligence, when there was not, other than their own possibly.Yes, these claims DO go through.
Click to expand...


This is exactly what I am (apparently badly!) trying to say!

.... plus, doesn't the fact that we all have our own ideas as to what a competent rider should and should not do/ take responsibility for mean that in fact it is not clear at all what responsibilities currently sit where? I just think that enforceable waivers - coupled with clear guidlines on what would constitute a negligent act that would fall outside of the ambit of that waiver, can only be a good thing and I just can't see where the objection lies there??

PLUS, the fact that someone has said that they merrily currently sign waivers they have no intention of sticking to rather also proves my point - just don't sign the waiver in that case!! (and if that means you don't get to ride on whatever premesis have asked you to sign the waiver then tough!). It just drives me nuts that people allegedly agree to something and then backtrack when it suits.
 
1. To do with claims going through that are not due to negligence, how would a waiver help? There is no valid basis in law for those claims, how insurance companies choose to deal is entirely another matter. A waiver wouldn't have the slightest effect.

2. Have you ever tried explaining the legalities of a waiver to a yard owner in words of less than two syllables? I have. Repeatedly. It is far simpler to sign the thing than have a protracted argument. If they are stupid enough to believe the waiver has any legal standing then frankly they should not be running a riding school. In most cases I simply put a line through the waiver parts that talk about disclaiming for negligence. A waiver essentially tells you riding is a risk sport. Which I am more than aware of. Anything disclaiming against negligence is not legal, not binding, and it shouldn't be in there. If they for some strange reason want it signing in its entirety, I will for the easy life. I would never bring a case without merit seeking compensation - but if I went to a riding school in good faith, was honest about my abilities and was given a horse that was unsuitable, and I sustained an injury resulting in permanant damage or financial loss, then I am not going to let someone else's incompetence or stupidity disadvantage me.

I don't think there is any doubt where responsibility lies. At a riding school, the horses, tack and facilities are the responsibility of the owner, with delegated responsibility to qualified, adult staff. If you go scuba diving, or parachuting, or bungee jumping with a school, regardless of your experience, the duty lies with them. Riding is no different. I don't know any riding school instructor who would say otherwise - they take the safety of their students seriously, and double check tack, etc. regardless of ability.

In most cases, I think waivers are there for precisely the reason you argue - that people think they have no recourse if they are injured regardless of the circumstances. Why else are they there, given they hold no water when it comes to negligence?
 
Also, you cannot catagorically state what would count as negligence, you cannot possibly account for every circumstance. Thus, by trying to state what is and is not negligent, you will actually make it more costly, and harder for people to understand, as you will need rulings from a court on anything not covered in writing. E.g. the instructor leaves her coat in the hat room, on a peg, but a freak gust of wind blows, the coat comes out of the tack room, spooking the horse - is it or isn't it negligent - unless you have that set of circumstances down, you actually make a stronger case for the person bringing it, because it is not listed as 'not negligent'.
 
I'm not suggesting a blow by blow list of what would and would not be negligent - I'm sure, though, that there could be some sort of code of conduct that could be formalised to improve the current position.

For example, you say there is no doubt where the responsibility lies (i.e. with the riding school). I'm sorry but that just can't be true as if there was no doubt then we wouldn't have any litigation now would we?

I'll give an example of when I think a waiver should stand. If a client that has been riding at the riding school for a decent period of time and is thought of as being capable is offered a ride on, say, a green horse, or to help back a horse (perhaps the student was contemplating getting their own horse for backing and wanted the experience but whatever the situation, the rider knew and understood the risks of riding a green horse), and said green horse bucks the rider off, for no reason other than the fact that it was green, whose fault is that? Surely if the rider - knowing the risks and not being capable theirselves - should in that circumstance accept responsibility and realise that if they get bucked off well that was their risk to take and they shouldn't be suing the riding school for putting them on a green horse. But are you saying that if the horse bucked them off because it was green it would still be the riding school's fault even if the rider said they accepted the responsibility?

... and for the record, I scuba dive also - and you are ALWAYS told to check your own equipment and report any faults. Quite frankly you'd be mad to go under the water without having checked your own equipment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top