8 March 2011
A friend of mine had a non fault accident with a horse and rider, fortunately nobody was seriously hurt and as the accident all happened on my friends side of the road, he was practically stopped when the horse went wild, the fault lies clearly with the rider, who said so at the scene.
My friends insurance company is however not confident of recovering the costs from the riders 10 million pound public liability insurance policy.
Anyone on here ever claimed against a horse, or know of any past judgements?
Nelson
20 October 2009
Oh dear - I have to try and not rant !! So I will make it very plain and simple.
Banks - Insurance companies are the biggest cheats and liars the world has to suffer. This is a decision after almost 30 years in shipping and dealing with both on a daily basis!!
End of minor rant.
29 October 2007
You do realise Nelson this is going to cause a whole wave of ranting about insurance companies and their general incompetence!
I was going to start on my own rant but I am going to be calm.
Suffice to say now-a-days you seem to be insured so you are legally covered and if you need to claim the likelihood of getting anything other a 50/50 settlement unless you have video evidence is negligible.
That's how it's been settled for years, 50/50?, just insurance companies saving themselves money at both party's expense,knowing that most won't take it further.
Peter Cavellini.
8 November 2007
I hope heavy costs were awarded against the insurance company as a deterrent to them wasting court time. They should have just paid out.
11 November 2009
I heard today that my friend had to attend court to prove negligence against the horse rider, he won his case because the rider's recollection of the incident was so vague, the judge decided they weren't paying attention at the time and thus were negligent.
Back by popular demand, asking the questions others dare not ask, its Nelson Moderno and his imaginatively titled, award winning Nelsons Column!
Three cheers for the forum Sealord...
24 July 2008
Public liability insurance isn't like car insurance it's paid out as required using the principles of Delict or Tort. That means if my horse kicks a car on it's travels the poor motorist has to prove that I had negligently failed in my duty of care to him. Thus had I let a mad wild horse loose on the road knowing he is a liability on four legs and is pre-disposed to kick passing cars and this can be proved in Court you have a good chance of having my insurance pay the damage. If, however my mild mannered horse was startled by a pheasant breaking out of a bush, reared up and kicked your car, inspite of the fact the horse is at fault, the insurance would not pay out as I was not guilty of negligence
100% correct TBH. A few years ago a horse reared up and it's front legs landed on a Westfield bonnet, causing major damage and basically causing the Westfield to effectively become a donor for another build. The (car) owner had to pay all his own costs.
19 May 2009
If, however my mild mannered horse was startled by a pheasant breaking out of a bush, reared up and kicked your car, inspite of the fact the horse is at fault, the insurance would not pay out as I was not guilty of negligence.
As a hayhead, as well as a petrolhead, I find this thread very interesting. It seems to me that if a driver were startled by, say, a mad gunman rushing out and pointing a gun at him, and the driver swerved and clipped a parked car before making his escape, the driver's insurer would pay the claim by the owner of the parked car and would subsequently pursue the gunman, if he's worth suing. But you are saying that the horse policy is written differently, requiring proven negligence on the part of the horse rider. Since this is such a large escape clause, I would expect such policies to be very cheap. Regardless of the position of the insurance company, wouldn't there be grounds for a civil suit for recovery of repair costs?
I forgot to mention that "insurance company" and "weasel" are synonymous.
Quiet day at the office today so I decided to do some research on the matter.
Firstly I will have to put my hands to calling it wrong on this one. I had assumed we were looking at a standard Delict or Tort situation. Accidents involving horses are covered by the (Animal Act 1971). A ruling by the house of Lords in 2003 set the precedent that damages can be claimed by injured parties from the horse owner regardless of whether or not the owner is negligent. As such, Moderno, it looks like your friend has an excellent change of recovering his losses and damages.
Opinions Of The Lords Of Appeal For Judgement In The Cause Mirvahedy v Henley
20th March 2003
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030320/mirva-1.htm
27 July 2010
If, however my mild mannered horse was startled by a pheasant breaking out of a bush, reared up and kicked your car, inspite of the fact the horse is at fault, the insurance would not pay out as I was not guilty of negligence.
As a hayhead, as well as a petrolhead, I find this thread very interesting. It seems to me that if a driver were startled by, say, a mad gunman rushing out and pointing a gun at him, and the driver swerved and clipped a parked car before making his escape, the driver's insurer would pay the claim by the owner of the parked car and would subsequently pursue the gunman, if he's worth suing. But you are saying that the horse policy is written differently, requiring proven negligence on the part of the horse rider. Since this is such a large escape clause, I would expect such policies to be very cheap. Regardless of the position of the insurance company, wouldn't there be grounds for a civil suit for recovery of repair costs?
I forgot to mention that "insurance company" and "weasel" are synonymous.
24 June 2008
I occasionally used to visit our office in Newmarket which was between the stables and the gallops, and can remember the locals telling me not to park my car on the street for that very reason - insurance liability. I thought they were just trying to pull my leg but found out it's true... if one of the horses kicked my car, I'd have no comeback. Moreover if the horse got injured I was told that I could be held responsible? Not sure how true that was but sounds ridiculous. Anyway I used to park the company car on the street but whenever I took my own car to the office, it was well out of harms reach.
29 May 2008
As far as I'm aware any damage caused to a third party or their property by a domestic animal is covered by the owners buildings insurance (and a horse is classed as a domestic animal). However if the owner is proven to be negligent their insures would be reluctant to pay out and may peruse them for costs. Most insurers don't make this information readily available - maybe they like to sell additional horse policies?
However as in all cases the driver needs reliable witnesses as all the rider has to do is claim the driver was at fault. Unless the rider offered a signed admission of guilt they are on thin ice.
23 December 2009
It matters not a jot whether the road was busy the horse rider has as much right to use it as any other person or vehicle including pedestrians where there is no pavement set aside for their use. I suspect to succeed in a claim against the horse owners insurance would require determination from the party suffering damage to their car, it would be easier if an injury occurred as the police by law would have to get involved.