Suing culture- it has to stop

If a client that has been riding at the riding school for a decent period of time [you would have to have something firmer than that - 'decent' is too open to interpretation - for some it could be 6 months, others, 6 years. Would it make a difference if the person could already ride when they started, or is it 6 months regardless of prior experience etc.]

and is thought of as being capable [by whom? how qualified does that person need to be BHSI? FBHS? I would certainly argue there are lots of AIs who are not competent to make that decision, and they shouldn't, they are assistant instructors, yet how many yards only have AIs?]

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) [I honestly don't think clients should be helping back a horse. Nor do I think they should be riding 'green' horses. We broke and schooled lots of horses - they didn't go into the riding school until they were suitable for it. Now it may be that a 'green' horse is defined as one who does not know lateral work, that would be acceptable, as the lack of lateral knowledge does not present the rider with an increased risk situation. A horse that is still being backed, cannot trot, canter etc. should not be used for clients IMO. If someone intends on buying a horse to back, the normal way is to have your instructor work with you and your horse - apart from anything else, I wouldn't want someone who was not 100% influencing one of our horses, they are an asset, not a pet, and you protect that assest from a business standpoint by only allowing competent people to ride, not letting people 'have a go' at schooling with it].

and said green horse bucks the rider off, for no reason other than the fact that it was green, whose fault is that? [The riding school's]

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. [Instructor should not have put them on a green horse, so it is not the place of the student to accept responsibility when the instructor, the expert, the one who has the duty of care, is ultimately responsible]

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? [Yup, as above. It isn't ME who is saying that, it is the law. The instructor has the duty of care to the client, by putting them on a green horse with the expert knowledge of being an instructor and knowing those risks, then the instructor has not done everything reasonable to prevent the risk, and they / the riding school are to blame]

I've had clients say to me 'oh go on, if anything happens you won't get in trouble, promise' (usually when wanting to jump a XC fence they are not capable of IMO) and you would have to be all kinds of dumb, as an instructor, to agree. Same with the green horse.

I used the scuba as an example, because if you went out for a scuba lesson, yes, you check your own equipement (for your own piece of mind) just as you would check a girth. But you would also expect the equipment to be correctly functioning. On a boat, you have no way of telling if the guage is faulty, and will show full even when nearly empty for example - it shows full, as you expect, you can't run it down to empty to make sure it is still accurate. You have to trust the equipment is up to scratch, because the scuba school are the experts, and have a duty of care to you, the client.
 
emma69 said:
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'.
Click to expand...

Good post
 
I don't think I'm getting my point accross very well...

.... I didn't mean to get into a dissertation as to the rights and wrongs of a "client" sitting on a green horse - my point was merely that if, knowing all the facts and risks, the "client" wished to sit on said horse and signed a liability waiver to that effect then that liability waiver should stand.

Sure there would be issues over whether the client was in a position to know all the facts and risks to be able to agree to them, but assuming the client was in that position then it's their risk to take, and if they willingly and knowningly accept that risk then I think they should be entitled to accept the risk.

we're all adults, right, if we choose to accept a risk we should stand by that choice! Even if it's a stupid choice, provided it is one made in full knowledge of the facts and risks, then if people want to make a stupid choice then that's their perogative! (so long as it doesn't harm anyone else, of course...)
 
I fail to see (still) how the type of waiver described there would have any effect on negligence cases (sueing) in the UK. Even with that type of waiver as described in the link e.g. the owner of the baseball field can still be sued for negligence, for example, if the benches were in a poor state of repair, and collapsed hurting someone, or there was a hole underneath the playing surface that was not visible, that caused injury, or if part of the fencing was broken and someone fell against it etc. Essentially ALL the things you can sue for under current English legislation. What the waiver prevents is someone sueing for injury caused during normal game play (eg they get hit by a ball, twist an ankle running to first base). In England you don't need an 'enforcable waiver' because the law would not consider an injury sustained in the normal course of riding to be something you can 'sue' over anyway - there HAS to be the fault aspect under English law (which is somewhat different from US law as I understand it).

FWIW, the whole 'Riding is a risk sport' signs you see around riding schools are essentially the same thing as the US waiver you describe (in the article, further down where it says people assume the risk just by entering the golf course) - golf courses, baseball fields, etc. over this side of the pond don't make you sign those waivers (ski hills do), but they have signs warning about stray balls or on the back of tickets to things like baseball events (essentially "Baseball is a risk sport" signs). As they already exist, I am not sure what else you are trying to introduce or what effect it would have.
 
Kelpie said:
I don't think I'm getting my point accross very well...

Sure there would be issues over whether the client was in a position to know all the facts and risks to be able to agree to them, but assuming the client was in that position then it's their risk to take, and if they willingly and knowningly accept that risk then I think they should be entitled to accept the risk.

QUOTE]

But that is the crux of it - the riding school / instructor is assumed to have a greater knowledge than the client, and therefore a duty of care over them. It is asumed the 'expert' knows more about the situation and its risks than the non expert. Therefore, the expert has to make the decisions and accept the risks of those decisions, because they are the ones with the greater level of knowledge. They cannot 'pass the buck' to someone of lesser knowledge.
Click to expand...
 
So riding schools the waters is very muddy when it comes to waivers then???

What about freelance or non riding school instructors??? Should we sue them for us falling off our horses during a lesson.

Say you go to their yard, its your horse you have travelled it, tacked it up and mounted and are warming up. Halfway through the lesson your horse throws a strop at something you are asking it to do as requested by the RI and you come off.

So whos fault is that then???

To me it wouldn tbe the RIs fault as to me this sort of scenario could happen at home and who could I sue then???

Did hear tho of someone who sued a RI for the death of their child for falling off their own pony during a lesson.

So is the sue culture a sign of the lack of accepted responsibility by riders??? Fair enough parent are responsible for their children but I mean if your going to let your child sit on an animal arent you going to research and accept that accidents happen??? But when adults get on horses SURELY they know that the horse has a mind of its own and that they may fall off and hurt themselves???

Nikki xxx
 
NiknKia said:
So riding schools the waters is very muddy when it comes to waivers then??? No, not really. Riding is a risk sport, injuries happen. Waiver or no waiver, you are not getting money as a result of a normal accident. However, there are times when the riding school is at fault, and in those circumstances, waiver or no waiver, compensation may be obtained (by sueing)

What about freelance or non riding school instructors??? Should we sue them for us falling off our horses during a lesson. Depends what happened - if the instructor did somethign negligent than yes, you are within your rights to sue (for example, they built a dangerous jump that caused the horse to flip). They should have their own insurance for precisely such circumstances.

Say you go to their yard, its your horse you have travelled it, tacked it up and mounted and are warming up. Halfway through the lesson your horse throws a strop at something you are asking it to do as requested by the RI and you come off.

So whos fault is that then??? Depends what it is. If it was a normal safe exercise, say a 20m circle, then there is no fault. If the exercise is unsuitable (say, jumping a 4' fence when the horse is a novice and not capable) then the fault is the instructors. An instructor is responsible for assessing the capabilities of what is in front of her, horse and rider wise, and teach accordingly.

To me it wouldn tbe the RIs fault as to me this sort of scenario could happen at home and who could I sue then??? Again, depends what, but the fact is you are under expert supervision, and that changes what you do (presuming you don't jump 4' at home - if you do, then it could well be considered a normal safe exercise for you and that horse).

Did hear tho of someone who sued a RI for the death of their child for falling off their own pony during a lesson. Possible, you don't have to be on a riding school horse for the school to be negligent - the design of the school has been responsible for the death of a couple of riders (think exposed posts), and as above, if the instructor had them do something that was beyond their capabilities.

So is the sue culture a sign of the lack of accepted responsibility by riders???
No, I don't think so. I think it is in part increased awareness that when something is the fault of another, you should not lose out financially. In part, increased focus on the 'safe' way of doing things. Like plenty of adult riders I did things that were horribly unsafe as a child and should never have been allowed by the riding school. Things like ride a horse to the back fields bareback, in a headcollar, without a hat, leading 3 other horses. Not safe, not acceptable, it shouldn't take someone sueing to make riding schools put safety first, but sadly, it seems to be the case that it does.

Fair enough parent are responsible for their children but I mean if your going to let your child sit on an animal arent you going to research and accept that accidents happen??? Yup, absolutely. But as a parent you choose a riding school that takes safety seriously, ensures children wear up to standard hats, ponies wear servicable tack, ponies are calm and suitable, not nutty little things bought cheap at market, staff are qualified and competent, and trained in first aid. It isn't about avoiding risk, it is about ensuring the risk is minimal for the activity by having correct safety equipment, staff and procedures. Safety is not about removing risk, but managing it.

But when adults get on horses SURELY they know that the horse has a mind of its own and that they may fall off and hurt themselves??? Yes, but as a novice or even experienced adult rider, you should have the confidence to go to a riding school, be put on a safe horse, in a safe environment, with safe tack and a knowledgable person instructing. Those are the absolute basics, but are lacking in some places. I am a reasonable competent rider, and I always understate my abilities (I always say that I am reasonably confident in WTC and over small jumps on a well schooled horse, for the record - you utter the words 'instructor' and chances are you are given the yard looney - no thanks, not on my dime!) and at one riding establishment I was given an ex-racer, who, as the ride progressed, I discovered clients 'never rode, he is too unpredictable', several of the staff were scared of, and whilst a sweet enough horse, had I actually been of the ability I had stated, it wouldn't have ended well as he was nervy, very responsive to minute shifts in weigh (as in, are we off galloping now?) and generally, like a just-off-the-track horse behaves . As the ride went on it came to light they were overbooked, hence the horse I was put on as 'you were the most able of the group' (based on my own ability statement, nothing else I had said). That is not the action of a responsible stables with a focus on safety.

Nikki xxx
Click to expand...

Does that make sense?
 
Kelpie said:
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?
Click to expand...

In a similar circumstance, there was a case I read about once (a long time ago so my facts might not be 100% but i was pleased by the common sense outcome) where a woman went on a riding holiday. Experienced rider was matched with a suitable horse, and warned that the horse could sometimes buck in canter. Rder was happy to continue and therefore continued on her hack or whatever she was doing. When she asked for canter, the horse bucked. She was asked if she wanted to continue or change horses and she was happy to continue on that horse. The horse bucked the next time she asked for canter and she fell off and was injured. She brought a claim and The riding school was found to be not negligent because they had made her aware of the risks, and she chose to accept them. In this sort of a case, a waiver is not necessary as the claimant has taken the risk and the defendant was not neligent. I found the case of MacClancy v Carenza interesting as well, another one where a claimant brought a claim against a riding school and was dismissed at trial.

Just found an interesting looking link: http://www.ridingsafely.net/legal_cases_pjmdp.html

Waivers wouldnt help because they cannot bar a persons right to claim where negligence on the part of the defendant exists - yes insurance is expensive but then its something you consider when you choose to run a risk filled business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top