Law suits being taken following falls sustained by riders

convert

Following on from the previous thread relating to a rider suing a riding establishment for a fall she received (this specific can't be discussed to the fact that it's ongoing), it seems there is an interest in discussing the topic of law suits for injuries sustained in a fall. As a result I'm starting this thread so people can discuss the topic. As always, no discussion of ongoing cases or offering legal advice, etc. can be permitted.

Ave Sodalis

The number of incidents that warrant a suing is very very small. I think the only case really would be if you bought a horse/pony, and it tested positive for Sedalin or bute, which resulted in the pony turning out to be a lot worse than it was and dumping you. But you would nearly have to start recording trials to show the pony being quiet, and the pony going mad (through energy levels/pain etc) that caused the fall so the buyer can't dope the horse as an excuse.

Another would probably be if what the woman in the other trial claimed was true. That the pony was starved and exhausted, then collapsed. Although, why you would get on a horse like that in the first place, I don't know.

duffman3833

if a person goes to an event or anything where there is a high risk of falling or an accident could happen, there should be no ground for suing. An animal is unpredictable, it could change mood at any given time for example. If a person gets hurt because of this animal the person should know that this could possible happen.

convert

There was a case taken a few years ago - Quinn v Bradbury & Bradbury - where the owner was held liable for the injury of the rider. However, in this case the rider, who was experienced, was awarded damages because he was asked to ride the horse past a spot where it was known to spook.
The link to the case is here: http://ie.vlex.com/vid/quinn-bradbury-366217674

I also vaguely remember there was a case taken by parents who had bought a pony for a child, but that it didn't live up to expectations and they had been sold a pony which wasn't as good as the sellers had said. It wasn't that long ago. Not quite the same thing, but an example of an unnecessary case.

Ave Sodalis

convert wrote: »

There was a case taken a few years ago - Quinn v Bradbury & Bradbury - where the owner was held liable for the injury of the rider. However, in this case the rider, who was experienced, was awarded damages because he was asked to ride the horse past a spot where it was known to spook.
The link to the case is here: http://ie.vlex.com/vid/quinn-bradbury-366217674

I also vaguely remember there was a case taken by parents who had bought a pony for a child, but that it didn't live up to expectations and they had been sold a pony which wasn't as good as the sellers had said. It wasn't that long ago. Not quite the same thing, but an example of an unnecessary case.

The first one: That's ridiculous... Horses spook, so you habituate. He knew the horse spooked. It was his job to make the horse workable. Suing because of unfavourable working conditions is a different story.

The second one: Completely unnecessary. You have to bare in mind the different riding styles and skill levels that cause a pony to change. Just because a horse has jumped 1.20m, doesn't mean you can get the horse to jump 1.20. Now if they were told the pony was good on the road, and it turns out it jumped and spooked at every leaf, then they have a reason for further action... still not a reason to sue though...

JillyQ

duffman3833 wrote: »

if a person goes to an event or anything where there is a high risk of falling or an accident could happen, there should be no ground for suing. An animal is unpredictable, it could change mood at any given time for example. If a person gets hurt because of this animal the person should know that this could possible happen.

I totally agree with the above. As possibly with a lot of people on this thread I have riden horses for good number of years and am well aware of the dangers in involed. I have been badly injured in two falls that I have had. The last one of these was a head injury (knocked unconscious ). Would I have dreamt off suing no I wouldn't because the incident involved the horse spooking, due to something which was completely outside of the control of school. I think people going on the occasional trek need to be made fully aware that horses are unpredictable and can spook at something which may seem quiet harmless to us.

Kamili

JillyQ wrote: »

I think people going on the occasional trek need to be made fully aware that horses are unpredictable and can spook at something which may seem quiet harmless to us.

As far as I am aware to get AIRE approval as a riding school the yard must display riding is a risk sport signs in multiple locations
I know that a lot of centers will ask for a disclaimer to be signed for insurance purposes stating that riding is a risk sport.
In some of these forms you waive the right to sue because basically accidents happen, its a risk sport and you're not being forced to partake.

JillyQ

Kamili wrote: »

As far as I am aware to get AIRE approval as a riding school the yard must display riding is a risk sport signs in multiple locations
I know that a lot of centers will ask for a disclaimer to be signed for insurance purposes stating that riding is a risk sport.
In some of these forms you waive the right to sue because basically accidents happen, its a risk sport and you're not being forced to partake.

The stables that I use have one if not two signs up stating that. I would have assumed that it was mandatory for them to have those signs up.

Kamili

JillyQ wrote: »

The stables that I use have one if not two signs up stating that. I would have assumed that it was mandatory for them to have those signs up.

For AIRE affiliation yes its mandatory.

TG1

Wasn't there a case in the UK a little while ago where someone who was riding a friends horse while the owner was pregnant and had a fall and tried to sue?

The judge ruled it was a risk sport so the owner had no liability I think. Can't really remember the details but I remember thinking it was about time and hopefully Irish law would follow suit...

kencoo

Unfortunately Ireland has a very high rate of cases being brought. If there is any gap in defensive a case could be successful. Another aspect people often ignore is the fact that blame and liability are not the same. I.e. you might not be to blame but could still be liable. If you are in control of a dangerous sport like horse riding you are 100% liable but this percentage can reduce by putting in systems and checks reducing it to a point where its a tiny amount. For example if you had documented steps taken to prevent injuries your liability would reduce a lot I.e. asking rider to confirm their experience , putting them on a horse that you know is suitable, not asking rider to do anything they are not capable of, having the riding area free of dangers as much as possible, trained instructors, recognised standards of fence builds etc. Simple things like closing a gate in an arena could make a difference. You could see liability may be your issue if you put a novice rider on a newly broken colt in an arena where a harrow was left parked up as an example!

granturismo

Signs and waivers are meaningless if the party alleging an injury can prove beyond the balance of probabilities that the defendant acted negligently in all four:

1. There was a duty of care - The defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff under the circumstances - yes in cases of paying clients

2. There was a breach of this duty of care - The defendant breached that legal duty by acting or failing to act in a certain way;

3. Causation - It was the defendant's actions (or inaction) that actually caused the plaintiff's injury - the equine temperament was unsuitable for beginners, the instructor was not qualified or inexperienced etc, etc

4. Damages - The plaintiff was harmed or injured as a result of the defendant's actions. -