A Warning from the Bench!

[Old Bloke]

There has been an interesting news item running down here in Devon. It concerns a riding stables who hire out horses for rides and riding instruction. A couple of months ago, a child was thrown from a horse (whilst under instruction) and true to form the parents of the said child have sued the riding stables because as they put it, the stables were liable because it was they that put the child on a horse that could/might/would throw a rider. The court and judge found IN FAVOUR of the parents. The riding stables are taking the case to tribunal for an over rule of the judgement. It is stated that the horse in question had never thrown before and was as meek and mild as they came. It would appear that the court ruling didn't take into consideration that a horse is it's own entity and has through time immamorial thrown their passengers even though the horse, (a wild animal) has been, over the years, socially tamed
by humans.
What worries me greatly is the principal that the court/judge has ruled upon.
Let us broaden the horizon with this principal and see how it can affect other sports, because if this rule stands then every Equestrian Centre in the U.K. would probably be forced to close because of no Insurance company wanting to take the risk.
Take archery. If an injury was to happen to a beginner whilst under instruction, say bowstring hitting boob/arm (as it does with lots of beginners who have'nt yet been taught proper posture or muscle memory through time constraints or other) then would it leave the door open for that beginner to sue the club for damages caused by injury sustained? And if the beginner was in a position to sue, based on the above ruling, would the GNAS insurance policy, cover the litigation process and support for said club (or even instructor) in the event of the court/judge finding infavour of the beginner? I'm hoping that common sense prevails and that the ruling will be overturned but if not then all sports (and not just archery) are in serious trouble with coaching/instruction infrastructures.
Watch this space.

[komtox]

I think the answer is to get ALL beginners to sign some sort of waiver. I'm sure that a competent solicitor could draw up a document to cover a club from any such like occurances.

[Old Bloke]

Unfortunately in the past, courts have ruled that a waiver is to be no defense against liabilty.

[komtox]

So, its heads they win, tails we lose...

[WhitehartFB]

Originally Posted by Old Bloke

Take archery. If an injury was to happen to a beginner whilst under instruction, say bowstring hitting boob/arm (as it does with lots of beginners who have'nt yet been taught proper posture or muscle memory through time constraints or other) then would it leave the door open for that beginner to sue the club for damages caused by injury sustained? And if the beginner was in a position to sue, based on the above ruling, would the GNAS insurance policy, cover the litigation process and support for said club (or even instructor) in the event of the court/judge finding infavour of the beginner? I'm hoping that common sense prevails and that the ruling will be overturned but if not then all sports (and not just archery) are in serious trouble with coaching/instruction infrastructures.
Watch this space.

This happened recently and the two beginners were on the verge of suing, in the end I believe it was agreed for their beginners fee to be refunded and for them to go on their way. Now a routine warning is given that this might happen - what a sad world we live in.

[TWIW]

Originally Posted by Old Bloke

There has been an interesting news item running down here in Devon. It concerns a riding stables who hire out horses for rides and riding instruction. A couple of months ago, a child was thrown from a horse (whilst under instruction) and true to form the parents of the said child have sued the riding stables because as they put it, the stables were liable because it was they that put the child on a horse that could/might/would throw a rider. The court and judge found IN FAVOUR of the parents. The riding stables are taking the case to tribunal for an over rule of the judgement. It is stated that the horse in question had never thrown before and was as meek and mild as they came. It would appear that the court ruling didn't take into consideration that a horse is it's own entity and has through time immamorial thrown their passengers even though the horse, (a wild animal) has been, over the years, socially tamed
by humans.
What worries me greatly is the principal that the court/judge has ruled upon.
Let us broaden the horizon with this principal and see how it can affect other sports, because if this rule stands then every Equestrian Centre in the U.K. would probably be forced to close because of no Insurance company wanting to take the risk.
Take archery. If an injury was to happen to a beginner whilst under instruction, say bowstring hitting boob/arm (as it does with lots of beginners who have'nt yet been taught proper posture or muscle memory through time constraints or other) then would it leave the door open for that beginner to sue the club for damages caused by injury sustained? And if the beginner was in a position to sue, based on the above ruling, would the GNAS insurance policy, cover the litigation process and support for said club (or even instructor) in the event of the court/judge finding infavour of the beginner? I'm hoping that common sense prevails and that the ruling will be overturned but if not then all sports (and not just archery) are in serious trouble with coaching/instruction infrastructures.
Watch this space.

There's 2 points to consider, OB.

Legislation is being enacted to prevent a re-0ccurance of the action against the stables, specifically aimed at removing the case of negligence against the stables if the horse throws a rider.

The GNAS public liability and professional indemnity insurance is specifically for protection against such claims as you describe from beginners.

[Old Bloke]

The points raised TWIW are valid, but as it stands the stables were found guilty of negligence and will have to pay up if the ruling is not over turned. As is the case the insurance company are looking at the issue of *without due diligence* before honouring the liability standing. We shall see how it turns out if it gets reported.

As fas as the GNAS cover is concerned, how good is it if it is to be challenged? Does anyone know? If courts/judges can rule in the case quoted, then boy, watch those insurance premiums rocket!

[Thunk]

It's a sad commentary on society in general these days that no-one accepts responsibility for their own actions. I the case Old Bloke quotes, did the parents not realise that a horse is an animal not a machine and can therefore be expected to do the unpredictable once in a while? If they didn't want their child to fall off, then they shouldn't have put him/her on!

In my opinion the stable would only be liable if it could be shown that they had put the child on a horse with a history of 'non-cooperation'. The story reminds me of the woman in the States who apparently pulled into a drive-through McDonalds, bought a coffee to go, then drove off down the freeway with it on her lap. When the inevitable happened and she spilt hot coffee all over her lap whilst driving she then sued McDonalds because the coffe was too hot - and won! We read things like this in the press and think, 'it could only happen in the States!' but unfortunately it is starting to happen here as well.

[JamesR]

Originally Posted by Thunk

It's a sad commentary on society in general these days that no-one accepts responsibility for their own actions. I the case Old Bloke quotes, did the parents not realise that a horse is an animal not a machine and can therefore be expected to do the unpredictable once in a while? If they didn't want their child to fall off, then they shouldn't have put him/her on!

On a similar note - I read an article about the Top Gear / Richard Hammond crash. The BBC stated that "safety was their number one priority".

Surely if safety was their number one priority, they wouldn't have let him drive a rocket powered car in the first place??? Just like the parents shouldn't put a kid on a horse if they're that worried about it falling off?

I am eagerly awaiting the return of common sense to everyday life.

[geoffretired]

Originally Posted by JamesR

I am eagerly awaiting the return of common sense to everyday life.

Me too, but I suspect we are in for a long wait.