Would you be liable if....?

B

Blondie1

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 May 2009
Messages
164
Visit site
You asked someone to move their car as you had a worry that your horse may damage it whilst leading your horse past some extremely heavy scarey machinery. The car owner moves it forward by about a foot and says "that'll be enough room"! Horse freaks and damages car!

Who's Liable?

Thanks
xxx
 
Probably the horse owner, although it isn't entirely cut and dried. The fact that the driver did move the car and that the horse owner didn't ask them to move it further will not help.

It should be reported to insurance though and they will deal with it.
 
Horse Owner asked for car to be completely moved away to another parking spot (where everyone else's cars were safely parked) - Car owner refused and said there's enough room.

It seems like a tricky situation to me. But i would of thought that Horse owner explained the hazard - Car owner did not take responsibility for car. I could be wrong tho.
 
If I was leading I wouldn't have moved the horse past until the car had been moved further away. My gut feeling is that the horse owner is liable cos they are ultimately acknowledging their horse is liable to kick, damage etc as they are asking for the car to be moved in the first place. The horse should imo not have gone near the car if there was a likelihood of it damaging it. The horse owner should have waited until the scarey thing was out the way and no damageable items nearby or have found an alternative route.

Just MO though and I'm no lawyer.
 
Shared liability? Insurance companies will battle it out, I wouldn't worry too much. Assuming your horse insurance covers you for 3rd Party.
 
The strict liability established in Mirhardy would mean that the horse owner was liable in law. But the fact that the driver's attention was drawn to the hazard which was then ignored would significantly reduce any award of damages.

In practice - one for the insurance companies to settle I should think. If the owner does not have insurance it is theoretically possible for the car owner to sue them privately but in practice it would cost far more than the likely damages to do so.
 
Car owner moves car, say there is enough room. The car owner has accepted the risk and is therefore solely liable unless the rider was grossly negligent. No need for mirhardy on this one.
 
disagree, if you damage someone elses property with your horse then you (your insurance) have to cough up. While the car driver thought thats enough room so morally they are at fault, it is the horseriders responsibility to make sure there was.

Like if a driver flashes you to turn right in your car and you do and theres an accident, its not their fault however unfair that seems as you're not supposed to rely on them signalling you, you have to make your own satisfaction that its wide enough.

But insurance co will decide....assuming there is insurance....
 
I disagree. I think you are getting confused with traffic law,where liabilities are rather different. My understanding is that this was not on the highway(apollogys if I am wrong). Pre Mirhardy, the situation was clear,we all insure our own risks.In saying "that,l be enough room" and not moving further,the car owner has taken control of the situation and has made a judgement as to his own risk. He was wrong , tough!
 
Mike007 said:
I disagree. I think you are getting confused with traffic law,where liabilities are rather different. My understanding is that this was not on the highway(apollogys if I am wrong). Pre Mirhardy, the situation was clear,we all insure our own risks.In saying "that,l be enough room" and not moving further,the car owner has taken control of the situation and has made a judgement as to his own risk. He was wrong , tough!
Click to expand...

This was kinda what i thought. It happened at a livery yard. Car owner was asked to move car completely out of the way so that horse could be turned out - like i said before all other cars had parked well away from the heavy machinery.

Should the insurance companies be involved or stick to the fact that the car owner took control of the situation and has made a judgement as to his own risk? May i add car owner has known horse for 2 years and knows it can be spooky with large heavy machinery.
 
I believe the rules of strict liability (Mirhardy) will apply. If a horse acts in a way that could be foreseen as natural behaviour for a horse then it falls on the keeper of the horse. Not fair I know.

Definitey speak to your insurance company though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top