Teenager sues for 3million after fall from ex racer

Antw23uk

Antw23uk

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 October 2012
Messages
4,056
Location
Behind you
Visit site
Not sure how I feel about this really. Accidents happen and unfortunately some are life changing. The girl who is now paralysed says she shouldnt have been allowed to ride her (now ex) boyfriends mothers horse because it was unsafe. They say she was a competent rider but fell off in walk and they had the approval for her riding the mare from the girls mother!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ehaving-horse-sues-3million-compensation.html

What do you think?
 
Even if the horse behaves as the girl's solicitor describes, that's still just a horse being a horse (albeit a horse on a bad day!)

I doubt they forced this girl into the saddle, and she owned her own pony, which you could be forgiven for taking of a sign of at least basic experience.

Bad luck for the girl, but she made the decision to get on board - she or her parents should have made sure they had personal accident insurance. I can't see any evidence that the owner of the horse has done anything wrong, on the basis of what's been reported.
 
I have a possible claim outstanding against me (although her solicitors told her she had little or no chance.)" to quote one of the experts;

" To succeed with a personal injury claim under s.2(2), the victim must satisfy three tests in relation to the accident:

The likelihood test: was the damage likely?
The characteristic test: was the horse a dangerous “problem” horse or was it a normal horse but, at the time of the accident, behaving in a dangerous way because of the circumstances in which it found itself?
The knowledge test: were the horse’s characteristics known to its keeper?

In brief, therefore, s.2(2) makes the keeper of a horse liable where the horse’s behaviour was predictable. "

See the whole article: https://www.warners-solicitors.co.uk/article/2015/an-accident-waiting-happen.html
 
This sentence: She was not an experienced equestrian and was just over five feet tall at the time, he said.

Um how big do they think jockeys are?!? Aside from the obvious older, stronger part. Kids start out at racing school on horses that have had no retraining and only know racing. Some of these kids have never seen a horse in the flesh before let alone sat on one.

I highly doubt this case will be on by the kid who is clearly out for all she can get. Riding is a dangerous sport and she chose to get on - more than once.
 
If I were being sued in a case like this, I would quietly sell up and ****** off abroad under the name Miguel Sanchez.
 
Is a teenager qualified to know whether she's fit and knowledgeable to ride someone else's horse or not? In the yes of the law, there are a lot of things an 'infant' (someone under 18) cannot do and I wonder if it accepts that a teenager is able to judge whether it was safe to ride a particular horse or not? A parent apparently agreed to her riding, but is that enough? The horse owner also bears some responsibility, but £3M worth? I can see why the judge has gone off to ponder!
 
The big question is - did the horse owner have insurance? As in horse insurance, BHS Gold membership. Or would her household insurance cover her (which it might if the field was attached to the house.) Insurers would probably try and make this one 'go away' by making an offer. If no insurance, is there any chance the owner could cough up this sort of money - and legal costs - if the case is 'won' (one rather doubts she would have bought an ex racehorse if she had money to burn!)
 
I have sympathy for the girl if the article is correct (always a moot point with DM!). Novice adult buys OTTB, doesn't re school it and allows 14 yr old to ride it in an open space when she appears not to be competent enough to judge the girl's ability. Teenager then hauls on reins to stop when horse goes too fast so horse freaks. If the owner had won the lottery and bought a Porsche, would she have allowed a new driver in it?
 
millikins said:
I have sympathy for the girl if the article is correct (always a moot point with DM!). Novice adult buys OTTB, doesn't re school it and allows 14 yr old to ride it in an open space when she appears not to be competent enough to judge the girl's ability. Teenager then hauls on reins to stop when horse goes too fast so horse freaks. If the owner had won the lottery and bought a Porsche, would she have allowed a new driver in it?
Click to expand...

Does it say the owner was a 'novice adult' or that it wasn't 'reschooled'? The girl had ridden the horse before and the owner had got the mothers consent.
 
Lesson learnt, won't let anyone else ride my horses, then the only person who can get hurt is me and no one else can sue me if they fall off.
 
Dry Rot said:
Is a teenager qualified to know whether she's fit and knowledgeable to ride someone else's horse or not? In the yes of the law, there are a lot of things an 'infant' (someone under 18) cannot do and I wonder if it accepts that a teenager is able to judge whether it was safe to ride a particular horse or not? A parent apparently agreed to her riding, but is that enough? The horse owner also bears some responsibility, but £3M worth? I can see why the judge has gone off to ponder!
Click to expand...

In the eyes of the law, she is an adult I believe. You can be tried in the court of law from the age of 10 in England (8 in Scotland) even for murder, so yes, she is fit enough to know, she is considered an adult really.

She got on willingly, an accident happened. Its unfortunate, but that's what happens in sport. To sue someone over it is pretty stupid to be honest, I would hope they are unlikely to win.

I'll still let a teenager at the yard ride my horse, but I know he has more brains than that girl. He wouldn't have a go at me if he fell off my horse, he'd brush the dirt off and get back on even if I said not to.

I find it odd that the accident happened in 2012, yet she's only suing now. I know cases can take a while to get to court, but 4 years? Anything to do with perhaps the split up of her and the ex boyfriend?
 
rachk89 said:
In the eyes of the law, she is an adult I believe. You can be tried in the court of law from the age of 10 in England (8 in Scotland) even for murder, so yes, she is fit enough to know, she is considered an adult really.

She got on willingly, an accident happened. Its unfortunate, but that's what happens in sport. To sue someone over it is pretty stupid to be honest, I would hope they are unlikely to win.

I'll still let a teenager at the yard ride my horse, but I know he has more brains than that girl. He wouldn't have a go at me if he fell off my horse, he'd brush the dirt off and get back on even if I said not to.

I find it odd that the accident happened in 2012, yet she's only suing now. I know cases can take a while to get to court, but 4 years? Anything to do with perhaps the split up of her and the ex boyfriend?
Click to expand...

I am not in favour of the blame culture and suing people for every minor mishap but this post is not fair on the girl whose life has been changed tragically in one unlucky moment, it is all very well saying if xxxx rides a horse, falls off they will brush off the dirt and get back on but if he had broken his neck in the fall he would be unable to, he would also, if he had half a brain, sue your insurance company to help support him in the future, if they were not offering a sensible payment, it is not stupid to try and get financial help for life changing injuries that is why we have insurance.

I expect this has been ongoing for years with insurance offers being derogatory, there is point point suing an individual for millions, unless they have millions, as there will be no money to pay out, there is no mention of insurance but I expect they are involved behind the scenes and that it will probably be settled with a far lower payout than asked for.

There will be far more to this than reported in the DM, the main thing is it shows that we need to insure and be extremely careful who we allow to ride our horses, not just for fear of being sued but because a simple fall can lead to serious life changing injuries that we would not wish anyone we are close to to suffer, riding horses is a risk sport, ensuring anyone getting on is capable of riding competently is something we should always consider before letting them ride.
 
be positive said:
I am not in favour of the blame culture and suing people for every minor mishap but this post is not fair on the girl whose life has been changed tragically in one unlucky moment, it is all very well saying if xxxx rides a horse, falls off they will brush off the dirt and get back on but if he had broken his neck in the fall he would be unable to, he would also, if he had half a brain, sue your insurance company to help support him in the future, if they were not offering a sensible payment, it is not stupid to try and get financial help for life changing injuries that is why we have insurance.
Click to expand...


This. She's got life changing injuries, not a few bruises. If you take out all the personal bits, that's exactly why we have insurance. It's easy to see it in light of blame of a dangerous horse or a vendetta against an ex or rising insurance prices but if you put those things to one side, she's going to have costs associated with being paralysed for the rest of her life. It's not unreasonable for her to pursue a payment.
 
Natch said:
This. She's got life changing injuries, not a few bruises. If you take out all the personal bits, that's exactly why we have insurance. It's easy to see it in light of blame of a dangerous horse or a vendetta against an ex or rising insurance prices but if you put those things to one side, she's going to have costs associated with being paralysed for the rest of her life. It's not unreasonable for her to pursue a payment.
Click to expand...

That's true, but who should have been the one to consider the insurance? Should it be the owner of the horse, or should it be the rider who chose to get on board (or in this case her parents)? If the owner is at fault, they should be liable. If the horse was just being a horse, the teenager chose to take a risk normally inherent in the sport, and should have her own cover.
 
Theocat said:
That's true, but who should have been the one to consider the insurance? Should it be the owner of the horse, or should it be the rider who chose to get on board (or in this case her parents)? If the owner is at fault, they should be liable. If the horse was just being a horse, the teenager chose to take a risk normally inherent in the sport, and should have her own cover.
Click to expand...

I think most rider policies and certainly ones for young people who are not "protecting" current income or mortgages etc, will be very low payouts, something in the region of £10k for life changing injury, not enough to make a difference, third party has a far higher ceiling, into the millions, if the injured party can "prove" their case, the payout will allow her to make a life for herself, it is proving negligence that is hard and why these cases end up in court.
 
This story illustrates why you must must have third party cover if you have animals .
Do I think on the basis of what was in the story the horse owner is liable ,no I don't I think the rider assumed the risk when she got on the horse.
It will be interesting to see what the outcome is .
I do have accident and critical illness cover life cover a sort of combined policy for myself it cost about 500 a month it would pay about half a million .
So there's no easy answer for this one her claim is for over three million which is probably realistic when you think how long she will live with the disability , to pay for that sort of cover for yourself would be prohibitive .
 
I think the problem is that payouts from insurance are dependent on blaming someone and showing they were negligent Sometimes accidents just happen and the person is just as affected and their injuries just as life changing.

Assuming what's being reported is correct, in this case it must be almost impossible to make a judgement as there are two very different accounts of what happened so it comes down to who do believe.
 
There's another side to this - all the craze for Racing to Riding horses. The owner claims she is more of a novice than the girl - so who the hell sold her a race horse. It's absolute lunacy in my book. That was an accident waiting to happen. TBs are more fizzy, more sensitive, more reactive and because of those things they are more dangerous for novices. Now you can say I'm generalising and I know I am, but having had a few, even the quietest ones, take them hunting and they react way more than the average cross. Given the right stimulus the blood comes up and a novice just wouldn't handle the situation.

Sadly though, in a sense, they are also really cheap, making them attractive. The person who sold that woman the horse, they have a share of responsibility here, not legally, but definitely morally.
 
If you look up the form the mare is hardly an ex racehorse, she had 1 failed attempt in a p2p so may well have been treated as a normal riding horse for most of her life, she probably was cheap, uneducated but being an ex racehorse is not really an excuse in this case, many tb's are totally unsuitable for inexperienced people but unfortunately they are usually inexpensive, so often end up in the wrong hands and when they do overreact everything happens so much faster than it does on the average horse.

Morals don't seem to come into the equation for many people selling a horse, especially at the bottom end of the market sadly.
 
Irish gal said:
There's another side to this - all the craze for Racing to Riding horses. The owner claims she is more of a novice than the girl - so who the hell sold her a race horse. It's absolute lunacy in my book. That was an accident waiting to happen. TBs are more fizzy, more sensitive, more reactive and because of those things they are more dangerous for novices. Now you can say I'm generalising and I know I am, but having had a few, even the quietest ones, take them hunting and they react way more than the average cross. Given the right stimulus the blood comes up and a novice just wouldn't handle the situation.

Sadly though, in a sense, they are also really cheap, making them attractive. The person who sold that woman the horse, they have a share of responsibility here, not legally, but definitely morally.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are generalising. I hate this stigma that TBs and in particular "ex racers" get. It had one run as a ptp horse, it was very unlikely to have come from a large yard or have been in training for any length to have demonstrated the traits that are "typical" of institutionalised racers. We have had quite a few straight out of training, comparing those to something 10 years out of racing and five years out of pointing is like comparing apples and oranges.
 
I'm talking about it as it pertains to this case, the stigma TBs face is another matter. Where I'm from at least, point to pointers receive special training on gallops. They are taught to run straight ahead. That is very different from the training a normal riding horse gets.

I'm not having a go at TBs. I'm questioning the wisdom of placing one, especially one who has been trained for pointing, in the hands of a novice rider. I think it's a recipe for disaster, and most horse people I know would agree with that.
 
We have both pointers and ex pointers and as previously stated, you are comparing apples and oranges. I have (quite happily) put novices on ex pointers and taken them hacking in open spaces and even hunting - a lot of hireling yards have pointers they hire to members of the public they have never met before.

Pointers are not trained to run straight ahead at all, many never receive "special training" on the gallops - its amateur, you don't need a licence for training PTP in this country, a great deal do it at private yards without facilities. The horse in question hadn't raced under rules, it was entered for one point to point, for all intents and purposes it is no more a racehorse than my Irish bog pony.
 
And tbh, Ive had a worse fall off my highland pony than I did in 3 years of owning a TB ex racer. Never came off the TB in 3 years of happy hacking, came off the highland, knocked myself out and ended up in A&E. No idea how it happened, cant remember but suspect he either tripped or spooked, or both together and I plopped off the front and banged my head. My point is that any time you get on a horse you are likely to come off sooner than planned, its an occupational hazard and as the rider, you have to accept the risk!
 
RunToEarth said:
We have both pointers and ex pointers and as previously stated, you are comparing apples and oranges. I have (quite happily) put novices on ex pointers and taken them hacking in open spaces and even hunting - a lot of hireling yards have pointers they hire to members of the public they have never met before.

Pointers are not trained to run straight ahead at all, many never receive "special training" on the gallops - its amateur, you don't need a licence for training PTP in this country, a great deal do it at private yards without facilities. The horse in question hadn't raced under rules, it was entered for one point to point, for all intents and purposes it is no more a racehorse than my Irish bog pony.
Click to expand...

That might be what is done in England but it's not what happens here in Ireland. Hunt hirelings here are not ex pointers they are generally ISH, draught crosses, that type of horse.

Here pointers do a lot of their work on the gallops. Just thinking now of the people close to me who train pointers. Several have a makeshift gallops along the headland of the fields on their farm. But there is also a local trainer, with his own and they use that. Strangely now, I don't see too many show jumpers there, hence the 'special training' for pointers. What they do is they build up the number of laps on the gallops. They're going in one direction or the other and they can't deviate from the track so that's straight ahead in either direction - at least it was the last time I did it.

Whether horses are running under rules or not, it's still a race they're running. Here the idea with pointers is to see whether they are good enough for NH, having proven themselves by winning in point to points. It's a serious business, with a lot of money involved, horses are trained by those with a licence and while they are ridden by amateur jockeys, many are on their way to professional careers. It's not really a sport for amateurs here in the sense that the other disciplines are. They may not be running at a race track but if you were to define them, they are still racers.

Horses who don't make the grade and won't be going to the track are not sold on to novices, unless by the very unscrupulous, in rare instances. Horses coming out of that training are not seen as suitable for weaker riders - rightly so IMO.
 
I think if you have a severe injury claiming against someone is not personal, its about getting money to live.
There was a case where two children where injured in a car crash, the car was driven by there mother and their court appointed legal guardian's( this is not the proper term) had to claim for them against her insurance, they would have to prove negligence. I think if you had rider insurance the insurance company would try and mitigate their loses by claiming against the horse owner, the horse owners insurance should fight the claim.
 
Did I misread it or has everyone else missed the point that the girl also rode the horse at the pre purchase trial, presumably to check it out for the more novice mother who was buying?

I don't blame her trying. And if it doesn't impact on the mother being refused insurance or having massively jacked up insurance costs in future, I hope she wins a fair amount to help her in future. Do I think the insurance is liable? Probably not.
 
honetpot said:
I think if you have a severe injury claiming against someone is not personal, its about getting money to live.
There was a case where two children where injured in a car crash, the car was driven by there mother and their court appointed legal guardian's( this is not the proper term) had to claim for them against her insurance, they would have to prove negligence. I think if you had rider insurance the insurance company would try and mitigate their loses by claiming against the horse owner, the horse owners insurance should fight the claim.
Click to expand...

This a view you can only take if your insured .
If you are a horse owner you can loose your home everything you own because of one bad desision.
Having a horse without insurance is like playing roulette using your home as the chips .
 
As we know, even gold medal winning Olympic Show Jumpers can sustain severe injuries to the neck and spinal cord.

Basic insurance for death, theft and straying or BHS Gold Medal Insurance is not a huge cost compared to keeping a horse. In the UK we always had Public Liability Insurance, I still insure in the UK for death and theft and on our farm for public liability.

This case is no different to car insurance, in that if someone fractures their spinal column or suffers a major head injury, they will need decades of assisted care for every day things like washing and dressing. That is why the insurance claim is in the millions. That is why every horse owner should insure themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top