This is an archived Horseadvice.com Discussion. The parent article and menus are available on the navigation menu below:
HorseAdvice.com » Equine Business and Law » Legal Discussions » Insurance »
  Discussion on Mounted accident
Author Message

Posted on Friday, Jul 27, 2001 - 9:30 am:

In the middle of May a riding instructor, who was experiencing personal hard times, accepted a job exercising a horse for an acquaintance of a lady to whom she was giving lessons. Instructor's personal health insurance has been canceled by her recently estranged husband, as has her means of support for herself and her 4 year old son. The horse was said to have been a bit spooky in the past but to have had recent training and all smoothed out. The instructor mounted the horse and the horse immediately took off with the clear and successful mission of throwing the instructor. Instructor falls, shattering her wrist. After 4 days in the hospital awaiting surgery, wrist is rebuilt with pins and bars. Instructor has no way to pay. Is there any liability on the part of the either the landowner where the horse was boarded or the owner of the horse?

Posted on Friday, Jul 27, 2001 - 11:07 am:

Hello
This is a sad situation. Whether or not the land or horse owner could be sued, I'd don't know. I question the ethics behind sueing a land owner unless somehow they were directly responsible for the fall. I understand the instructor is dealing with financial hardships but how is that the landowners fault? I do feel for the instructor but as a land owner there is a constant worry of being sued.
The horse owner's responsiblity is questionable as they misrepresented the horse.
BUT as we all know if you are on or around horses you can get hurt.
How about a fundraiser for this instructor?

~Barbara

Posted on Friday, Jul 27, 2001 - 4:38 pm:

Although I too feel very, very badly for anyone who is the victim of a serious riding accident (having suffered from several recently myself), it makes me extremely ANGRY for someone to even SUGGEST sueing the land/barn owner because the victim "can't afford to pay their medical bills". As Barbara mentions above, how is the landowner at fault for the instructor's financial hardships? Unless the landowner was directly responsible for the accident, this train of thought should not even be begun, and is one of the MAJOR reasons there is so little property left for people to ride on - MINE INCLUDED!!!

Also, in this case, since the victim claims to be and is acting as an "instructor" as a profession, I don't think she has much of a leg to stand on as far as sueing the horseowner either, regardless of how the animal was represented. Even the most placid of animals are capable of "taking off" while being mounted for any number of reasons - I've experienced this myself first-hand - and if you are trying to make a living as an "instructor" or trainer, you should be darn sure you can handle just about anything that comes down the pike or stay off of it.

I would also have to question the mindset and maturity of someone with a 4-year old son without personal health insurance doing something like this in the first place. I don't think I would want them "instructing" me. Maybe they can sue the horse.

Obviously with a sorely hit nerve,
Bonnie

Posted on Friday, Jul 27, 2001 - 6:12 pm:

Hello...I am a landowner myself...I carry liability insurance to protect myself, I thought, in case somebody is injured while riding on my property. Please note in my original posting that I did not use the word lawsuit, and did not suggest that the person should sue. However if we, as horseowners and landowners carry insurance to protect ourselves in the event that someone is injured, should we not ask if we are covered when somebody does get hurt? Sorry to have struck a nerve. It was not my intention.

Posted on Friday, Jul 27, 2001 - 6:37 pm:

Robert, just a quick note...it may be that you are thinking on the "medical payments" coverage afforded by a homeowner policy. This is a provisional coverage which in NO WAY accepts liability for an incident and can be offered by the homeowner on a courtesy basis. The homeowner cannot be obligated to provide that coverage to someone as they may jeopardize their insurability by filing a claim based on their prior claims history - but certainly could be approached concerning the matter. Hope this helps. Dawn

Posted on Friday, Jul 27, 2001 - 7:56 pm:

Hi Robert - Sorry if I inferred that it was you who struck the "nerve". It's just seems like every time someone falls off a horse, an attorney ends up on a European vacation and some poor farm or landowner goes under!

If I were a landowner where an accident occurred, I would run, not walk, to the phone and have an immediate in-depth chat with both my insurance agent and an attorney (European vacation aside)to find out exactly what my liability could be in the particular type of situation. I recently did some insurance investigating as I plan to hire someone to assist me in working with my young horses. I discovered that while my homeowner's insurance would cover the average person injured on my property by my own horses, it did NOT cover someone injured by a horse owned by someone else, and it did NOT cover someone injured while performing ANY type of business pursuit - i.e. lessons, training, riding; in essence ANYTHING where money changed hands. It also did not cover riders coming through my property (coverage allowing that was astronomical & discouraged). For the prior protection cited, I would need to obtain Commercial Liability Insurance from an equine insurance company. Homeowner's insurance - even the non-obligatory medical liability type that Dawn mentioned - may not cover a situation where money was changing hands and a professional was involved.

Again, Robert, sorry to have sounded so "soap-boxy", but particulary here in Northern VA, it seems there's a new case every couple of weeks involving liability & horses. I know that sometimes there really is a negligent situation where monies and blame should be due and paid, but it just seems like the legitimate cases are far and few between. There are even a number of "equine" attornies now that handle nothing but equine-related problems (which has its own good and bad points, I'm sure). Where is it going to end?

I say it is definitely in every horse and landowner's best interests to immediately sit down and find out EXACTLY how and for what they are protected by their insurance. I was truly amazed at how little my homeowners guy knew about the small print until I pressed him to investigate it for me - and at how intricately the lines are drawn between what's covered and what's not. Don't wait till it's too late!

Bonnie

Posted on Saturday, Jul 28, 2001 - 10:21 am:

This situarion brings up some deep rooted fears and frustrations. We just completed an arena on our property and the very day the sand was laid I had "friends" stopping by to visit and "oh, can I ride in your arena?"

My attempts to get Umbrella Coverage have forced me to look at selling a kindey to cover it. I have selfishly decided that it is too much personal risk to allow the new "friends" to play in the sand. Bonnie your nerve is shared here, I am gratefull that our state has Inherent Risk laws regarding horse related activities which helps us protect ourselves.

Robert, I feel for your friend in these desprit times but for her futur career in equestrian activities she should steer clear of sueing or in any way going back to the property owner. As we all know news of a bad reputation travels fast in the horse community and this would surely black-list her from others property for fear of being compelled to pay on the event of any accident. I think you would find more genuine support and less burnt bridges if a fund raiser or donnation account was set up.

Posted on Saturday, Jul 28, 2001 - 10:58 am:

Hi Emily - I agree that your arena situation is a very common case in point. When we first moved here 4 years ago, the property we purchased had not been in use for about 10 years, and all of the locals had been accustomed to riding on it (21 acres of lovely open/wooded old pastureland). When we moved in, we had these people unceremoniously showing up at all hours - particularly when we weren't home - without asking permission or anything; and I was forced to put the word out - STRONGLY - that this was no longer permitted. Like you discovered, insurance to cover the liability is OUTRAGEOUS, and the neighbors who rode through here the most were the same ones who were absolutely appalled that I had no intention of sueing the farm and instructor where I had taken a recent accidental spill and fractured my spine! Can you imagine what would happen if these particular folks took a spill at my place!! Like you - I'd be selling body parts to avoid bankruptcy!
It is truly a shame that we as human beings have come to this type of behavior, but as they say. . . . it takes all kinds; and some kinds we could do without!
Bonnie

Posted on Saturday, Jul 28, 2001 - 1:39 pm:

Why isn't anyone mentioning the horse owner? I am curious as to her liability. She decreed the horse safe to ride and it was not.

I don't believe in suing others, either. And this was not a debilitating injury (ie. wheelchair) but i would think legally if the injured party wanted compensation for getting hurt, going after the horse owner would be the first look.

All trainers i have hired to ride my horses, must show me liability insurance of their own.

The horse owner was negligent in her responsibility AND the homeowner negligent in her rules regarding such activities.(not enough to be sued). We have 4 separate forms to sign when we allow riders, trainers, or lessons given, on our property.

Posted on Saturday, Jul 28, 2001 - 2:22 pm:

I agree that if one was forced to pick just one party at any fault here (besides the "instructor" herself), it MIGHT be the horseowner. However, we weren't given any specific info as to how the horse was presented to the "instructor".

Robert did say that the horse had a reputation for "spookiness in the past, but that had been "smoothed out"(????) Let's face it, any "instructor" or even just horseperson with a brain would take that info with a grain of salt. Nothing, but NOTHING, is ever definitely "smoothed out" when you are dealing with horses. It just doesn't work that way. And like I said before, even the most placid animal with no "reputation" is perfectly able to take off without giving prior notice.

If the horse was known to have had problems with spooking or shying in the past - smoothed out or not - and that was conveyed to the rider, that info alone, I believe, would absolve the horseowner - at lease somewhat - from a negligence standpoint; especially when they apparently thought they were dealing with someone representing themselves as a "professional".

And again - really - how "professional" is someone with a small child depending on them and no health insurance riding other people's horses? I cannot believe she cannot find a safer and less risky way to make some extra money.

Bonnie

Posted on Saturday, Jul 28, 2001 - 5:00 pm:

I like to look at it this way... the only truely safe horse is a dead horse... crude but true. I love horses but I respect that from mini to draft they ALL out weight me and have a self preservation instict much more rooted than mine and when it comes out in the wash they WILL win. This is where "inherent risk" comes in. I think the owner did their job in allerting the instructor to past known behavior but the futur behavior of even the most docile animal can not be gurenteed EVER. Any new horse I encounter I treat as though they are one step from kicking, biteing, bucking, bolting, rearing, strikeing, falling, farting and pooping in one simultanious motion! I expect the unexpected when dealing with 1200 lbs of hay buring attitude on the hoof. This, along with a lot of dumb luck, has kept me from getting seriously hurt (knock on wood). I really feel strongly that we as riders need to look at ourselves when incidents like that occure. WE put our foot in the stirrup when WE could have said no thanks. Just because it is someone elses horse or property does not exempt us from useing common sence.

Boy I could stay up on this soap box for days!!!

Posted on Saturday, Jul 28, 2001 - 8:33 pm:

Amen, Emily!

Posted on Sunday, Jul 29, 2001 - 8:11 am:

Hello Robert, Have her talk to her surgeon/doctor about her lack of insurance. I know for a fact that some doctors will donate their services (not the hospital services) but their bill to a person if they feel the person really needs the help. If not, she can work out a payment schedule as little as $5 a month until she can get back on her feet. I am interested in knowing why her husband cancelled her insurance. Has she checked with an attorney? It may be that he really could not do this legally.

Anyway, I think having a benefit/fund raiser for her is a great idea too!

Posted on Sunday, Jul 29, 2001 - 8:45 am:

I agree Katharine - most doctors are really human about stuff like this. I mean, what are their alternatives - put her in jail?!? The most important thing is, as you said, to bring the subject to the doctor's attention NOW. If you wait until the doctor's office has turned it over for collection, you are not going to get much sympathy because by then it just sounds like excuses. Most hospitals also have medical social workers' departments that can help set up medical payment plans. A benefit/fundraiser sounds great as well, & maybe some local schooling show(s) could dedicate the proceeds from a class or division as well. I've seen that done and it all adds up.
I also agree that what the husband did is odd - even in an estrangement case. Everything he does to the mother eventually will trickle down to his child in some way. Once again - it takes all kinds. . . .
Bonnie

Posted on Thursday, Aug 2, 2001 - 8:45 pm:

To those irritated at the thought of any "talk of a lawsuit," please consider this.

Bringing a lawsuit against another party in an injury case is typically not a choice, but rather a requirement brought on by an insurance company. This is known as "subrogation."

(Assuming similarity in all or most states) An insurance company cannot be a party to a lawsuit. If any insurance coverage is involved, the paying insurance company has a right to seek recovery from some other party. If the paying company thinks some other coverage might be brought into play, they have the right to require their insured to whom they paid losses to bring suit against another party, to recover some of their losses. The only choice their paid insured has is to either bring the lawsuit, or return to their insurance company what money they received.

This is why it is completely impractical to *ever* make the statement, "I'm your friend; I would never sue you." A person can be forced to sue his own mother if he has collected insurance money, and his carrier thinks they can collect back against the mother's insurance carrier.

In the resulting lawsuit, it would be said that "Party A appears in person and by his attorney so-and-so, and by his insurance carrier such-and-such. Party B appears ... (similar)." Even though the insurance company forced the lawsuit to be brought, they are never direct parties. Otherwise, settlements and decisions would be inflated because of the perceived deep pockets of the insurance company.

In the case described, the injured didn't have insurance. However, that is not to say that the treating physician's organization may not receive some "uninsured" insurance compensation, and then that carrier may reach out to seek recovery from the landowner or horse owner, rather than take the loss completely. Such a scenario is probably *not* likely, assuming small dollars, and a waiver of medical expenses is more apt to occur. But what goes on behind the scenes in the insurance world is unpredictable.

Thus, if tempers arise against the "talk of a lawsuit," one should calm their nerves relative to the parties involved, and aim their anger largely at the insurance world. The exception, of course, is any individual who seeks a "greenback poultice."

Posted on Friday, Aug 3, 2001 - 7:40 am:

Hi Annette/Bryan!

While I agree with some of the basic tenets of what you are saying, I still strongly believe that the most powerful source of successful & sometimes unwarranted litigation is the "injured" party.

An insurance company can jump up & down, stand on their heads, &/or hold their breath till they turn blue - they will still not be able to recoup their losses unless negligence on someone's part can be proven to some degree. And believe me, I know that they try.

When I fractured my spine in a riding accident during a dressage lesson 4 years ago, I received not 1, not 2, but 3 separate questionnaires from my insurance company concerning the exact particulars of the accident. It was obvious that they were looking for a straw to grasp in order to go after either the instructor, the farm, whomever. I filled these out with EXTREME CAUTION, knowing full well that the slightest semantic slipup could end up badly for the folks involved - who were not at fault. By Questionnaire #3, I simply wrote in all capitals that THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO NEGLIGENCE INVOLVED BY ANY/ALL PARTIES PRESENT, & I WAS NOT GOING TO PURSUE OR SANCTION ANY LEGAL ACTION ACCORDINGLY. That was the end of it. However, I know for a fact that any number of acquaintances of mine would have been in court - with or without their insurance company's blessing - before the plaster was even dry on their cast.

In the case of the situation that started this discussion, if the instructor had insurance, I doubt that her insurance company would be successful recouping their losses from either the horse or landowner due to the fact that she is/was accepting money for her services - thus categorizing her as a "professional". As such, unless someone was landing next to her in a hot-air balloon, firing off a cannon, or whatnot; I doubt either her own, or the physician(s)' insurance carriers will be able to collect anything. Now they can, however, probably go after her - the victim - personally. Though, as you say, that is unlikely considering her financial position.

Sorry, but I think this is one of those "let's agree to disagree" situations. An insurance company may be able to try to force you to "sue your mother" or best friend, but unless they can get you or some other reliable witness to cooperatively provide proof of negligence, only the lawyers will make any money.

Bonnie

Posted on Friday, Aug 3, 2001 - 7:42 am:

Ahh yes...the greenback poultice it seems to bring relief to many, but lawyers in particular benefit from the treatment. The variety of conditions it treats is huge and many are poorly defined making scientific evaluation difficult. Of late if seems to frequently substitute for two treatments that have been considered valuable in the past: personal responsibility and even the time honored working for a living.

The main problem seems to stem from the inability to distingush these two clinical entities:
1) accidents and mistakes
2) intentional evil

In the past accidents and mistakes have generally been considered to be just part of this world, something everyone did from time to time. Remuneration for physical damages was considered reasonable but there were some things that not even the green back poultice will fix.

Of late it seems that accidents and mistakes have been treated like intentional evil, where jail is the best treatment and deterrant to further evil. The fact that the best treatment for evil is not sought in these cases suggests that all are aware that evil is not a complication. Instead the green back poultice (manufactured by Avarice and Greed under the trade name: Punitive Damages) is applied. This treatment has changed the prognosis for us all: we increasingly substitute walls, laws, and rules for friendship and good judgement.
DrO

Posted on Friday, Aug 3, 2001 - 7:24 pm:

Dr. O..what you have just said is so very very true..I have more than one attorney in the family and fortunately they agree with what you just stated also. People are too quick to look for an easy way to make a few dollars at someone elses expense. I also cannot have neighbors ride in my arena ..even people who come up to the fence to pet one of my horses seems threatening now a days!! At any rate, I fail to see it changing back to a friendlier state as long as people are unwilling to accept their own responsibility. And of course there are exceptions... To Emily...I personally don't think it is fair to all the wonderful horses in this world to say the only safe horse is a dead horse..And I will bet I am not the only one,

Posted on Friday, Aug 3, 2001 - 7:54 pm:

Dr. O - I must say that I have never seen or heard our current litigation-oriented society described more soundly or eloquently!!!

Again - if I had a penny (not a nickel, or a dime - just a penny) for every person who expressed astonishment that I had no plans to make some "easy money" from what was a simple toss from a spooking horse - I would be a wealthy woman as we speak. I'm certainly no angelic little "goody two-shoes", but this never ceases to amaze me!

Bonnie

Posted on Saturday, Aug 4, 2001 - 9:21 am:

Hello All,
Lynne, Emily is absolutely right. Though you may not have liked the way she expressed it, I have personally known 2 people killed by wonderful horses. In fact, dangerous horses are generally not much of a problem: everyone knows that he is dangerous and take precautions.

Never take where you are standing around a horse for granted, never take for granted that the horse you are mounted on is going to remain standing, when you do you put your very life at risk. Let us not kid ourselves on this matter.
DrO

Posted on Saturday, Aug 4, 2001 - 9:06 pm:

I am not kidding myself about anything. I also have spent most of my life with horses...my kids grew up with them and I am well aware of their power and their innate senses. I know that knowledge, understanding and common sense are imperative around them. I also know that horses in my life have always created a special way of life, bringing joy, beauty , trust, companionship, togetherness with my children, and taught all of us about caring and responsiblities toward other living creatures. I know what it is like to lose a treasured horse who took good care of me for 27 years. So, I guess thinking of horses in those terms seems to minimize the importance and meaning of all the good things they do for some of us in our lives.

Posted on Monday, Aug 13, 2001 - 10:19 am:

Hello Lynne,
I have thought a while about your post and considered letting it go, some people are just sensitive to certain types of expression, but I keep coming back to it. I just figured out why, it is not the statment I wanted to defend, it was Emily!

Emily has been writing in and helping horses and horse owners on The Advisor for many years, long before it took its present form. I guess I just want you to know Emily cares deeply about horses and horse people, please do not judge her on the way she expresses what is a true statement. She makes it not as a derisive statement about horses but as a warning for all around horses to take care.
DrO

Posted on Tuesday, Aug 14, 2001 - 9:48 am:

How true, DrO - I've appreciated Emily's posts for their support, information & humor.

Posted on Saturday, Aug 18, 2001 - 11:42 am:

I hope Ireland never gets like the US but I fear we're travelling on the same road. Riding's a risk sport. We're lucky here to have riding on farms, charity rides, hunting, beach rides, etc. etc. I think insurance problems will gradually finish all of these.

Last week's edition of Horse and Hound was very interesting about cooperatives set up to arrange insurance for farm rides in south east England. The cooperative arranges the insurance for the landowners and pays them fees for access to the land. The riders each pay an annual membership fee to the cooperative.

I realise this isn't directly what the original message was about, but I think the restriction on where you can ride is something that's affecting more and more people in different countries and some innovative work will be needed to counteract it.

Oh, and by the way, Killarney Council is bringing in a byelaw to force all the jarveys (drivers of tourist horse carriages) to have nappies for their horses to save on street cleaning...

All the best

Posted on Saturday, Aug 18, 2001 - 2:37 pm:

Hi Imogen,

if that ever comes about (the nappies) post a picture please!!!!!


Teresa
Home Page | Top of Page | Join Us!
Horseadvice.com is a BBB Accredited Business. Click for the BBB Business Review of this Horse Training in Stokesdale NC