katiex2
Well-Known Member
Three cars damaged - 1 quote got so far and that one alone is over £400!!!!
What do you think??
- Thread starter katiex2
- Start date
Shilasdair
Patting her thylacine
Sorry, but I think the owner is liable, and morally obliged to pay for the damage her horse caused. The car owners parked where they were supposed to, and the fencing was appropriate. If the fencing was weak and contributed to the problem, then perhaps the YO should also help out. I appreciate the horse owner didn't do anything wrong...but think that, as horse owners we are still responsible for the little dears' actions.
S
S
dozzie
Well-Known Member
But isnt it different on private property?
If its private property then they park there at their own risk. I wouldnt pay unless they were a mate!!
If its private property then they park there at their own risk. I wouldnt pay unless they were a mate!!
alleycat
Well-Known Member
I actually think the YO might be liable, assuming its the yard's fencing. Horses lean over fences; if they can do damage by doing so the fence is inadequate. The yards PL insurance might cover this.
I do feel sorry for this owner, and I'd wonder about that quote. You can spend that much repairing minor damage, but you shouldn't have to. I think she should get quotes herself to prove that its unreasonable.
I do feel sorry for this owner, and I'd wonder about that quote. You can spend that much repairing minor damage, but you shouldn't have to. I think she should get quotes herself to prove that its unreasonable.
alleycat
Well-Known Member
Also, "morally" liable makes me cringe. Why should she feel morally liable to pay £1200 for cosmetic damage? The drivers haven't been left without transport; its just been decorated a bit. Nothing has been hurt or endangered. She may or may not be legally liable; but morally? Nah....
And where insurance is concerned it doesn't do to consider it in a moral light, anyway as insurance companies will then promptly disengage themselves and back away.
I've just never understood how people can be so precious about minor damage to their cars paintwork when its going to get scratched sooner or later, anyway. This case is unusual in that the thing that scratched it didn't come off worse, for once.
And where insurance is concerned it doesn't do to consider it in a moral light, anyway as insurance companies will then promptly disengage themselves and back away.
I've just never understood how people can be so precious about minor damage to their cars paintwork when its going to get scratched sooner or later, anyway. This case is unusual in that the thing that scratched it didn't come off worse, for once.
vicm2509
Well-Known Member
I would have thought that the reason the horse was not covered fot this is perhaps that it was on private property? It should be covered under the insurance of the YO im my opinion, it is a bit silly to have a paddock so close to where cars are parked really, I mean if the cars were that close then other damage could also occur, for example if the horses were playing and kicked out near the fence then a car could have been kicked.
Its a tough one as if the paintwork is damaged it is going to cost the horse owner quite a lot as they would no doubt need to be sprayed. If it were me I would not pay. If it were something smaller like one chewed wing mirror then perhaps yes I would. But I dont personally think the owner of the horse is liable for damages unless she knew the horse cribbed and saw the cars parked there, realised the horse could reach and left it there.
Its a tough one as if the paintwork is damaged it is going to cost the horse owner quite a lot as they would no doubt need to be sprayed. If it were me I would not pay. If it were something smaller like one chewed wing mirror then perhaps yes I would. But I dont personally think the owner of the horse is liable for damages unless she knew the horse cribbed and saw the cars parked there, realised the horse could reach and left it there.
Shilasdair
Patting her thylacine
[ QUOTE ]
Also, "morally" liable makes me cringe. Why should she feel morally liable to pay £1200 for cosmetic damage? The drivers haven't been left without transport; its just been decorated a bit. Nothing has been hurt or endangered. She may or may not be legally liable; but morally? Nah....
And where insurance is concerned it doesn't do to consider it in a moral light, anyway as insurance companies will then promptly disengage themselves and back away.
I've just never understood how people can be so precious about minor damage to their cars paintwork when its going to get scratched sooner or later, anyway. This case is unusual in that the thing that scratched it didn't come off worse, for once.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know what you mean, but I still reckon that unless the fencing is faulty, the horse owner should make reparations, if the car owners want it.
Now I've had someone reverse their Disco into my car door...when it was parked...and never bothered to claim it on their insurance or fix it...but I'm not particularly car proud.
Unfortunate situation for all concerned.
S
Also, "morally" liable makes me cringe. Why should she feel morally liable to pay £1200 for cosmetic damage? The drivers haven't been left without transport; its just been decorated a bit. Nothing has been hurt or endangered. She may or may not be legally liable; but morally? Nah....
And where insurance is concerned it doesn't do to consider it in a moral light, anyway as insurance companies will then promptly disengage themselves and back away.
I've just never understood how people can be so precious about minor damage to their cars paintwork when its going to get scratched sooner or later, anyway. This case is unusual in that the thing that scratched it didn't come off worse, for once.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know what you mean, but I still reckon that unless the fencing is faulty, the horse owner should make reparations, if the car owners want it.
Now I've had someone reverse their Disco into my car door...when it was parked...and never bothered to claim it on their insurance or fix it...but I'm not particularly car proud.
Unfortunate situation for all concerned.
S
Jemima44
Well-Known Member
Sounds like very bad luck for the owner, but in this case, if the cars were parked away from the fence and had permission to be there, I think the owner is morally liable. If the car owners were to take a case to the small claims court my guess is that they would win.