Yearling injured during professional training, should I claim?

carolineg said:
Thankyou to those of you who posted sensible opinions. I have decided to deal with it through my insurance company and will pay the excess. I am not an idiot and understand horses are horses, it was more a question of whose insurance should pay. I have no problem with the professional and certainly would not say anything against them personally. I think perhaps some of you misunderstood my post, I perhaps should have been clearer. I have to say some of you are very quick to judge when you do not know me or know the full circumstances. I won't be posting on this forum again.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand how insurance works? I think everyone on here was clear what your question was ie whose insurance should pay. For the professionals insurance to pay, there would have to be a claim of professional negligence against them, hence the replies you received. You did, in your first post, try to blame the professional for not taking your suggestion of using a second lunge line. To say now that you think people have misunderstood you, is laughable.
 
carolineg said:
Thankyou to those of you who posted sensible opinions.
Click to expand...

By this, I take it you actually mean opinions which don't point out that essentially you are trying to scrounge money to pay bills that you should be responsible for, and have the means to pay, being a horse owner.
 
Moomin1 said:
By this, I take it you actually mean opinions which don't point out that essentially you are trying to scrounge money to pay bills that you should be responsible for, and have the means to pay, being a horse owner.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. But it's also a shame you didnt seek help earlier - as so much of this could have been solved when the youngster was still on mum.
 
amymay said:
Of course she could have.
Click to expand...

I watched someone trying to load a yearling who had her mother's bolshy, hysterical attitude and the wagon was parked between a concrete wall and a line of conifers. Filly went off the side of the ramp and through the tree branches. A lungeline won't stop anything.
 
carolineg said:
I actually suggested we had a lunge line each to keep her straight and prevent the filly hurting the professional but the professional didn't want to. If we had had a lunge line each side as I had suggested, she wouldn't have been able to fall off the side as she did. I have never claimed off anyone before but the bill is over £600 and my yearling is scarred for life in an incident that could have been prevented.
Click to expand...

Lunge lines do not keep a horse straight if it chooses to be a pain in the butt.

The lines themselves can cause difficult loaders to become more difficult as they distract from the handler and some horses are scared of them.

Did you not have the horse booted up, as that would have been the most sensible thing to do.

You have a difficult horse, you must expect repercussions. Take some responsibility on yourselves and not join the ever increasing, 'let's sue them' fraternity.
 
ihatework said:
I'm flabbergasted you even had the gall to post this OP.
Click to expand...

I am with you on that .
OP your badly behaved horse injured itself it was an accident they happen .
Everything does not have to be someone's fault .
Pay your vets bill just as if it happened in the field .
A lunge line is as much use as a chocolate fire guard if they choose to be dumb and so easy to get tangled in .
 
Last edited:
Moomin1 said:
By this, I take it you actually mean opinions which don't point out that essentially you are trying to scrounge money to pay bills that you should be responsible for, and have the means to pay, being a horse owner.
Click to expand...

Don't always agree with you, but with you 100% on this.
 
I can't see how it's the instructors fault.
Horse was bad to load any way.
Unless they did something to totally freak the horse or were gueniinly cruel then it's just one of those things.

I hope your horse is better now and you can't teach it to load nicely.
 
carolineg said:
I actually suggested we had a lunge line each to keep her straight and prevent the filly hurting the professional but the professional didn't want to. If we had had a lunge line each side as I had suggested, she wouldn't have been able to fall off the side as she did. I have never claimed off but the bill is over £600 and my yearling is scarred for life in an incident that could have been prevented.
Click to expand...

OP if at any point you were unhappy with what the professional was doing - you should have stopped the process, by allowing it to continue, you have accepted the risk.
Frankly I think you got off lightly with £640, I'm sure my vet would have charged far more!
 
hairycob said:
I can't be the only person getting heartily sick of people on social media complaing they can't afford a relatively minor bill for a horse.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I think all of us could do without a £600+ vet bill, but I'd just be grateful 1. Horse is alive and 2. It's not a £6000 vet bill. Personally I'd just pay it and put it down to a bad experience.
 
hairycob said:
I can't be the only person getting heartily sick of people on social media complaing they can't afford a relatively minor bill for a horse.
Click to expand...
No!!! I can't understand how people not just with horses but with other assets such as cars, houses don't have means of covering an unexpected bill, in this case of £300. Your car could break down or you boiler/ washing machine could break and cost this to fix what do people do then.
If you choose to have luxuries you must have a means to cover bills like this especially when it's vets bills for an animal. Don't get me wrong I do my horses on a shoe string but I manage my budget so I'm covered.
 
If the professional is not insured that is their bad.
When they are being paid to educate a horse and owner they are responsible for ensuring that nobody gets hurt- Vets are the same.
Therefore you should have a good case against them -what have they said?
I know to some it may seem mean claiming when the horse had a history- but that is why these people are qualified professionals and the idea is that they can resolve the situation without the horse getting hurt- i.e this is why the owner employed them.
 
carolineg said:
Thankyou to those of you who posted sensible opinions. I have decided to deal with it through my insurance company and will pay the excess. I am not an idiot and understand horses are horses, it was more a question of whose insurance should pay. I have no problem with the professional and certainly would not say anything against them personally. I think perhaps some of you misunderstood my post, I perhaps should have been clearer. I have to say some of you are very quick to judge when you do not know me or know the full circumstances. I won't be posting on this forum again.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand. You have no problem with the professional, and certainly would not say anything against them personally? But you wish to sue them for negligence?

Maybe the confusion is because you don't understand how professional indemnity insurance works? It is not like your vets cover, it is in case someone takes you ( a professional) to court for negligence. It is so you don't lose your house if you have indeed made a mistake and proved to have done something wrong in court. It is not an insurance policy to pay out because there has been an accident.

You would first have to prove there had been an Error or Omission (as in the professional did something wrong, or did not do something that they should have done). Essentially you are saying exactly that you have a problem with the professional.

I hope that explains why some answers have been a bit short, if you did not understand.

Occasionally I do "trailer loading", and it is not a job that I particularly enjoy. Essentially I am not generally called until the horse is in a state with loading/unloading, so an accident is more likely than with a green baby. I do not like to use lunge lines etc, as I believe if they get tangled up there is more danger. I prefer to work alone, as if I were, god forbid, use an owner with a lunge line and THEY were kicked, then the bill would be for an awful lot more then £600. Plus, many owners need a horse to load alone, so using ropes and assistants is not a viable option.

I hope you maybe understand the replies better, your horse recovers, and you find a way to teach loading that suits you better.
 
Last edited:
No one can guarantee horses not getting hurt .
Not even the best more carefully set out racing yards dealing with horses handled by experts from birth can prevent all handling accidents that's the nature of dealing with horses .
No professional would load a difficult horse on the basis of if something goes wrong it's my fault .
OP would have be able to prove the trainer caused the accident by negligence , I think that would be hard.
 
SusieT said:
If the professional is not insured that is their bad.
When they are being paid to educate a horse and owner they are responsible for ensuring that nobody gets hurt- Vets are the same.
Therefore you should have a good case against them -what have they said?
I know to some it may seem mean claiming when the horse had a history- but that is why these people are qualified professionals and the idea is that they can resolve the situation without the horse getting hurt- i.e this is why the owner employed them.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the essence of this. A trainer is responsible for making evidenced decisions and operating safe protocols. They are not expected to have magic powers to control every muscle of a horse. It is accepted at court that horses can be unpredictable, being a flight animal. The trainer must show that they had risk assessed the situation, this may include things such as the state of the horsebox, the gate being closed, the owner out of strike range, the horse restrained...... etc etc. The trainer, if taken to court would have to account for their thought processes, and decision making.

For example, if the owner says "this horse leaps off the ramp every time it leaves the lorry" and then the trainer just does that thing then I would say that there was no preparation to negate the risk. If however the trainer felt that the horse was rude to lead, and worked on the ground first, or maybe changed the equipment for control as well then attempted to offload the horse, then they had taken reasonable and logical steps to lower the risk.

There is no way to eliminate the risk entirely, all you can do as a trainer is take reasonable steps. Fortunately that is all the court requires as well.
 
Last edited:
SusieT said:
If the professional is not insured that is their bad.
When they are being paid to educate a horse and owner they are responsible for ensuring that nobody gets hurt- Vets are the same.
Therefore you should have a good case against them -what have they said?
I know to some it may seem mean claiming when the horse had a history- but that is why these people are qualified professionals and the idea is that they can resolve the situation without the horse getting hurt- i.e this is why the owner employed them.
Click to expand...


So would you sue your doctor if he failed to cure cancer even though he did nothing wrong?

No professional in any sphere can guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong. The question is whether they caused the going wrong, and if they didn't then suing them is morally repugnant.
 
SusieT said:
If the professional is not insured that is their bad.
When they are being paid to educate a horse and owner they are responsible for ensuring that nobody gets hurt- Vets are the same.
Therefore you should have a good case against them -what have they said?
I know to some it may seem mean claiming when the horse had a history- but that is why these people are qualified professionals and the idea is that they can resolve the situation without the horse getting hurt- i.e this is why the owner employed them.
Click to expand...

How unrealistic. Horses are animals. The very fact the professional has been called in means the horse has an issue. And the very fact the horse has an issue means a greater risk of something going wrong. Are you seriously suggesting that every professional who deals with every problem horse, should be able to do so without ANY risk of anything happening?
 
carolineg said:
Thankyou to those of you who posted sensible opinions. I have decided to deal with it through my insurance company and will pay the excess. I am not an idiot and understand horses are horses, it was more a question of whose insurance should pay. I have no problem with the professional and certainly would not say anything against them personally. I think perhaps some of you misunderstood my post, I perhaps should have been clearer. I have to say some of you are very quick to judge when you do not know me or know the full circumstances. I won't be posting on this forum again.
Click to expand...


The replies were critical because we all assumed that you understood that his insurance is for professional indemnity and will only pay out If you claim that there was negligence in his management of the horse. And because you worded it very much as if being unable to afford your £300 excess was a primary reason for your post. I think it is a bit unfair to blame people for their responses. I agree that you probably won't be happy on this board if this is your typical reaction :(
 
Happy Hunter said:
I agree with the others. Unless you can prove her negligence Caroline its down to you to stump up the excess.
I am sorry to hear about the event, I am sure a cup of strong sweet tea is in order!

In my opinion, a lunge line doesn't stop anything, particularly legs falling over the edge. Obviously however I was not there at the time.
Click to expand...

^^ This is my inclination. I'm afraid you will have to swallow the bill not sure what your case would be with the pro it was an accident. Sorry it's a nasty situation.
 
/no because he would not have caused the cancer.
However if he asked me to do something beyond my capabilites I would expect him to be able to put it right.
That is why people train and become professionals and not just lay people. They are not advertising a 'well it may or may not work or be safe' approach.
 
SusieT said:
/no because he would not have caused the cancer.
However if he asked me to do something beyond my capabilites I would expect him to be able to put it right.
That is why people train and become professionals and not just lay people. They are not advertising a 'well it may or may not work or be safe' approach.
Click to expand...


The trainer didn't cause the horse to fall off the ramp. He was called in precisely because the horse was doing stuff that was dangerous, and just as a doctor sometimes loses patients who are presented to him with a pre-existing condition, so the horse fell off the ramp in spite of the trainer.

And if we don't stop suing people, there will be no-one left to turn to for help when we need it, medical or equine :(
 
SusieT said:
/no because he would not have caused the cancer.
However if he asked me to do something beyond my capabilites I would expect him to be able to put it right.
That is why people train and become professionals and not just lay people. They are not advertising a 'well it may or may not work or be safe' approach.
Click to expand...

On that basis How does any professional teach anyone to ride ?
No one can seriously think anyone can prevent injury to a large flight animal in 100% of situations .
I have never seen any equine professional advertise ...this always works , nothing ever goes wrong I can guarantee no injury will occur they would nuts if they did .
 
SusieT said:
/no because he would not have caused the cancer.
However if he asked me to do something beyond my capabilites I would expect him to be able to put it right.
That is why people train and become professionals and not just lay people. They are not advertising a 'well it may or may not work or be safe' approach.
Click to expand...

Right, so you actually do believe that every professional MUST be able to cure every single horse of every single problem, without any failures or accidents happening along the way. Unbelievable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top