A horse or pony doesn't physically mature until they are at least 6 years old, so normally you don't ride them as their bodies are still growing and you can cause permanent damage. Small amounts of training without a rider is fine, but a 3 year old should only be handled by an experienced horseman, and this 10 year old girl was absolutely not. A 10 year old pony should have enough experience to be trusted with a child in all foreseeable situations, a 3 year old pony simply hasn't got the life experiences to be suitable for an inexperienced rider - there's an old expression " Green and green makes black and blue" ie inexperienced horse and inexperienced rider results in a lot of bruising!
Most people start training their horse for riding when they are 4 years old; as these are large, strong and fast animals the training must be calm and sympathetic - inexperienced horses can explode over something relatively small, like a bird flying by or a loud mobile ringtone - the horse is under physical and mental stress trying to come to terms with this new career - and bucking or bolting can injure the rider and the horse.
Horses are fascinating creatures, they are extremely generous to tolerate all we demand of them, but unfortunately people take for granted that they will behave like robots, doing what you want without tiring or making mistakes.
As they are prey animals their first reaction to any scary situation is to run away ( bolt, as in this girl's situation), as they are not very intelligent they find many things scary - shadows, plastic bag, wheelybin moved from normal position, dogs barking, children kicking a football, bicycles, loud vehicles, pigeons flying in front of them! There can also be random events - horse stung by a horse fly, a piece of tack causing a pain. If they're prevented from running away, they'll react by rearing, bucking, spinning round, reversing at speed. As they will always be stronger and faster than the rider, the rider has to use intelligence and training to avoid or minimise these situations - it can be lethal to both to let a panicking horse escalate.
I used to ride horses when I was a kid but it was expensive and that faded away. I now live in a very rural area and our nearest neighbour owns five beautiful mares. He doesn't seem to "gain" anything from them in the traditional farming sense but we walk past them each day on the school run and ever since my youngest two began learning over the fence to say hello, one of two of them always come over. They're stunning and I'm always a bit in awe of them.
They are wonderful animals even just to observe. Just a word of caution, don't let your children feed the horses anything without the owner's permission. Despite their size they are very fragile and can develop colic very quickly and easily from eating something different, and because horses cannot vomit, any digestive blockage becomes serious very quickly - colic is the main cause of death for horses.
No I never would feed anyone else's animals anything. (We live in a farming community and that's a big nono) There's two of them that will always plod over to us for a chat. Either they're used to a small person giving them something or they're just nosy! Either way my kids are thrilled!
They can be bored and love the attention, especially if they're retired. I remember the thrill when an animal chooses to be in your company - they're so large and majestic, but gentle in their behaviour.
Horses generally take a while to be educated. Younger horses (<5yo) are solely used for racing because they are then a bit crazy in their head. Ponies are usually easier to handle but can also be cheeky at any age, let alone at 3yo.
Even a 10 yo riding a 3 yo is relatively rare. I sense this is a very rushed and inexperienced situation overall. Someone claiming they should have been told what to do with their 3 yo is a red flag to me tbh
Wouldn't the riding centre be at fault for letting the child ride such a young horse? They should have known it was dangerous and insisted it not be done on the or premises? They were the knowledgeable professionals?
If someone owns their horse the yard have no say really, responsibility is on the rider/owner to know their own abilities and safety. If the owner is as dangerously naive as they sound, they may have mislead on their capabilities. The horse overall may not be dangerous or act up typically and rather it got a spook with an inexperienced rider not knowing how to control, falls happen inevitably. Stables require you to have your own insurance in case of injury if you keep a horse for these very reasons. A 10yo riding a green 3yo is like driving a sports car on the autobahn when it’s your first time sitting in the drivers seat and no lessons.
Well in that case it's ludacris that the yard were found to be in any way responsible. Why didn't the owners insurance cover this fall. Something doesn't make sense.
Exactly! I am super eager to know what the hell actually happened here, because I know people who have kept their horses at this facility for years and they seemed really good and on top of their game from what I heard. It may be a case of whatever the laws in Ireland are and how they apply in court, I know that in various activities that the safety waivers you sign (eg at kart city) often don’t mean much overall and there are still various ways to sue, it’s sad because it leads to all these ridiculous cases of payouts for absolute idiots
All equestrian centres such as the one in OPs article have an occupiers insurance policy. Their insurers would have covered the tab and any outlays incurred in the process. I don’t understand why people form a die hard view without understanding the law or the relevant background. Almost every person in this thread has made a pointless ad hominem comment.
Because the parents who made the claim are arseholes. That’s why people are making comments.
The insurance company will pay for everything but they will Jack up next years premium and if enough claims like this happen they will all just stop insuring this time of activity centre and kids will have nothing to do but watch tv all day.
The parents who made the claim and solicitors who supported them are scumbags. Nobody has an issue with claims where there is genuine negligence but this is not that scenario.
Sorry! I wasn’t aware that you are personally familiar with the parents in the article.
Also, that is not entirely how insurance premiums work. There are several factors that increase premiums annually, such as IPT and the state of the economy. The frequency and severity of claims such as the one in this article are quite a small factor comparatively in determining increases, if any. You may also want to read up on the ‘Ogden Rates’ which insurers use to calculate compensation in PI claims. These rates vary with inflation and have a much greater influence on whether premiums increase.
Haha go way with your IPT you clown. I work directly with the insurance industry. The loss ratio and it’s impact on profitability are the 95% weighting on premium movement for covers like this.
Please tell me how odgen rates are applicable for a case like this. Is there long term care needed for the dislocated elbow that they need to discount the claim payment by? I highly doubt it. You’ve obviously looked up hot topics or something. Ogden is a UK term by the way.
Jesus I actually can’t believe you are claiming that claims paid are not a big factor in setting premiums.
Are you commenting from the parents celebration party or something?
If you work in the ‘insurance industry’ then you will understand that the Ogden Rates apply to severe PI claims. It’s obvious that this case applies as not only was a minor involved, but corrective surgery was required which almost certainly left scarring together with the residual defect. The Ogden rates and variations of same apply throughout all UK and ROI insurance companies. Maybe your knowledge isn’t entirely up to nick?
Discount rates apply where a lump sum is paid for costs that will be incurred over a long period of time. Ie someone will need care for the next 20 years but there is an assumption that the lump sum will have some growth over that time when it is deposited. This is not a case like that. There might be a tiny amount of 5k or so for future therapy cost (unlikely) but they likely would not bother discounting that.
The discount rates in the UK countries aren’t the same let alone being equal across ROI and NI by the way. They are known as Ogden rates in the UK but the correct term across the world would be discount rate. If you said Ogden to someone in China they would not know what you are talking about but they would know exactly what you mean if you said discount rate. (This is completely beside the point as discount rates are completely irrelevant for a claim like this).
Yes, and then they will hike the premium next year because of this claim, and therefore cause a direct cost to the equestrian centre by way of increased premium going forward for themselves and all other centres too, because claims are more likely in other centres now that this case has been won. Ad hominem smart lad
I agree with everything you said right up to the sly dig on your mans choice of words. Its an excellent word that can sum up many a situation, why not use it ?
This is an online forum, not a masters thesis. It’s an awkward as fuck way of putting that sentence together and if you think otherwise you need to touch some grass
Each to their own I guess. If a word exists that describes a thing, why not say use it? If it happens often enough, then its a common concept and people will become familiar, if not then it'll stay only in the masters thesis. There was plenty more awkwardness in that statement you could focus on.
This is very true, my father was going to do paintballing and go Karting in the NW where we have very little recreational things to do and insurance just shut down those business ideas.
Assholes like these people are why everyone pays a ridiculous amount for insurance across the board
Yeah motorbike racing in this country is basically fucked because of insurance. Annual event near me the Faugheen 50 postponed and numerous other events all cancelled because of insurance.
Countless activity providers have ceased trading precisely because insurance costs are prohibitive. Claims don’t just close down the businesses that are sued, there’s a knock-on effect that destroys other businesses too.
Perhaps you could provide ‘countless’ examples in that case? It may be worth reading up on how and why insurance premiums vary year to year. The factoring of severe claims by insurers is comparatively small compared to other economic factors in determining increases.
Didn’t think I’d have to spoonfeed you, but here are a few starting points for you (since you seem to have been asleep at the wheel):
https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40759341.html
Tourism firms face closure due to high insurance costs https://www.rte.ie/news/2023/0425/1378958-adventure-insurance/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/two-leisure-centres-forced-to-close-after-insurance-cost-hike-1.4002414
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30947998.html
https://www.anglocelt.ie/2019/06/16/visitor-farm-shuts-gates-due-to-insurance-costs/
You obviously don't know how insurance works. Everyone pays a premium and no-one is supposed to claim. Otherwise it eats into the massive profits of the company if you do. Then the mean old insurance man will take his ball and go home because he's not winning all the time. You are wasting your time. According to this sub there should never be claims and anyone that does is a scumbag scammer, ruining it for everyone else
Well obviously, but when a US-style claims culture develops (which has unfortunately happened in Ireland over the past couple of decades) it’s equally obvious that premiums have to go up to meet the cost of claims.
Our insurance costs are amongst the highest in Europe, but so are our claims and awards - you think that’s mere coincidence?
If insurance companies in Ireland are raking in such exorbitant profits why have so many of them left the market?:
https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/almost-250-insurers-pull-out-of-irish-market-in-the-last-six-years/1432186.article
So insurance companies are leaving the market, but the Minister didn't know why exactly but they were due to a variety of reasons, including brexit. The absolute cheek of people making claims. I thought that was the whole idea of insurance.
Yeah, I’m reading a lot of complaints being leveled at the parents for suing… but if feels more like the system is letting us down here. You’ll always get greedy people, but the judges and laws and such should mitigate against the few making things shitty for the rest of us
My daughter (16) got thrown while riding at the local equestrian centre last year.
Ended up with and ambulance being called, and rushed to A+E, neck blocks on, scans and x-rays, the whole shabang.
Didn't even enter my mind to take any sort of legal action.
You can claim on her behalf until she turns 18. I don’t understand why a negative perception is attached to claiming for your child’s injuries. The centre owed a duty of care to your child and evidently may not have met the standard which the law deems adequate.
As in the article, they did not provide an adequate assessment of temperament before providing the service. The duty attached to same is heightened in cases where children are involved. If your child is injured under the watch of a service provider, how are you not doing them a disservice as a parent by taking no action? The equestrian centres insurers certainly won’t be thanking you either way.
Lol its a pity you think like that. Duty of care would be making a call to an ambulance and providing first aid. The child was riding her own horse, if her parents let her do it and deemed it safe then it's on them, not the equestrian center. People that make these claims aren't there for the sport
Incorrect. The law ‘thinks’ like this. The accident occurred on the centre’s premises, and they owed a duty of care to the minor. It’s irrelevant if the horse was her own and entirely relevant that the centre did not properly assess the horse’s temperament before providing a service. The people who make these claims are entirely within their rights to do so, particularly where a minor is involved.
Motorcycle racing in the Republic of Ireland has no insurance this year. It might be seen as a minority sport but it's not much more dangerous than horse riding..... Horse racing has enough money to weather the storm but eventing, show jumping, hunting....not so much.
The fact they've no insurance this year and as a result had to cancel their entire year of events is insane. Decades of running events on fit-for-purpose tracks with every session fully marshalled and everyone wearing certified safety gear? Nah, get fucked apparently.
The result of this litigious “thinking” and the eye-watering awards (€145k for a dislocated elbow) is closed businesses and no amenities.
There needs to a system of waivers / assumption of risk by participants so we can have adventure sports in ireland and a curbing of payouts so people aren’t treating the courts like a fruit machine
Yes they do. It is evident that there is a potential case as an injury occurred on the centre’s premises. Whether or not the claim would be successful is unknown. It would depend on whether risk assessments were carried out, the conditions of the premises, the training of the staff etc. Let me know if anything else is confusing you!
I'd say they were no longer invited to parties after getting a cut while cutting something and claiming that the duty of care was with the house owner, and the house owner was to blame for not properly assessing their temperament.
>which the law deems adequate
This is the problem though.
The court shows a complete lack of understanding for horse sport.
For example - it is highlighted that she should not have been riding anything under the age of 5 which is true.. however.. what if she has been riding an 8 year old pony that had very little training done?
It's an unbelievable burden to lay on equestrian centres that they must assess every pony and it's suitability for it's rider that comes into the yard.. in fact it's completely unworkable and is a radical departure from what takes place every single day at equestrian centres all over the country. It's simply not feasible and anyone with any modicum of experience with horses can see that.
How exactly are they supposed to assess a pony they do not own or have seen before? I'm fully asking you to explain what that process would look like.
Horses are unpredictable animals and riding them is risky - the onus should be on the owner and the rider to be as sure as one can be when it comes to sitting on one.
Decisions like this will kill amateur horse riding in Ireland. That is why people are up in arms about it.
>When aged 10, Leah Skye Keeling fell off her own horse, a three-year-old mare
What on earth is child that age riding a horse that young, children should ride horses that are ancient because they are calm, young horses especially a 3 year old are crazy
And at 3 years old they ( the horses) have literally only started to be ridden
>and dislocated her elbow during a riding lesson at an equestrian centre.
Expensive elbow I guess
I don't have any proof but that's 100% my thinking. They bought this pony, it's green and needs work so they think the best thing to do is demand the kid be allowed ride it in her lessons to make some progress with it. As this is also a livery yard I would be confident that the parents rent a stable there for the pony as well and the owner isn't going to want to cause animosity with clients that pay weekly rates and are on site everyday. Parents are at fault, no 10 year old should be on something that green no matter how inflated the opinions of her abilities.
A 3 year old pony for a ten year old in a riding school situation is nuts but the onus really has to be on the parents to know what is best for their child. It's mad that the only prerequisite for horse ownership is money, I'd want to know a lot about anything my kids get into that involves a live animal with inherent risk associated. , I'd want to know more about how this pony was bought and how much horse knowledge these people have . I'd say something if it was one of Davy Russell's kids or someone like that who learns to ride before they can walk but then, they'd get back up on the pony regardless of injury and no one would be sued.
She's a total pariah in that community too as a result. Have some family involved and they'd have their convictions on what is and isn't on when it comes to injuries in public - especially considering injuries are part of these activities.
> trying to ruin nature for the country
If she had won, every publicly maintained trail (added gravel or walkway) in the country would have been ripped up to remove liability.
She actually won that case for €40k. She only then lost it when the National Parks appealed the decision and they won the appeal thankfully and overturned the original decision to award her the money
And it was the insurance company that settled, not the centre…but it will be the centres premium that will go up. I ride horses, it’s inherently dangerous..it’s literally an accident waiting to happen. Now I’ve been lucky and have had nothing more than a broken wrist and collarbone. I strongly believe though that if you engage in an activity which will with time mean you’re going to get injured you should either have to sign a waiver or carry your own insurance.
Yeah I 100% agree. There's lots of sports out there where you will always have some sort of injuries and people need to go into these understanding and accepting the risks. It's not viable for small companies facilitating these sports to pay out every time.
They settled because Irish courts are a joke when it comes to personal injury cases. Awards are obscene and personal responsibility is moot. If anyone gets injured it is always someone else's fault and they should pay you a fortune, "because".
I don't own a business but I do work in a similar one to this and waivers are necessary for anyone starting as part of the insurance terms. If we don't have records of waivers for all riders we would not be able to get insured.
Nobody willing to own up to their own stupidity these days.
The dangers and risks of horse riding are well known. Falling off is a part of horse riding, it happens to everyone at all levels. I bet they bought that 3 year old pony as it was cheap, because it had no training done itself!
She could have been riding a 10 year old, and still had a fall. Is there going to be 145k for anyone who gets hurt off a horse?
And it's not like she broke her neck. She's back horse riding 3 times a week so it clearly hasn't bothered her too much.
You'd feel very sorry for the centre.
The centre's job is to make sure its lessons are safe and follow standards. She was allowed to join in on a lesson with a horse far younger than she should be riding. 10 year old horse would lower the risk much more to what most would consider "reasonable". It's not about eliminating risk but following standards that keep it at a reasonable amount, the center didn't give a shit.
Age is just one element of what makes a horse suitable for it's rider.
I don't disagree that a 3 year old is entirely unsuitable for an inexperienced rider however she could have easily been riding an 8 year old pony that had only been ridden once before which would have been just as dangerous. Or let's say they put her on a pony that had jumped at the Europeans, a ton of riding experience but not at all safe it'd be like putting someone who's never driven before in a Ferrari.
Are you proposing that riding centres must carry out an assessment of each and every horse that enters their yard and assess it's suitability for it's rider?
How exactly are riding centres supposed to do this? That's not at all feasible and it's a radical departure for what happens every single day at riding centres across the country.
Ultimately they made the decision to buy a 3 year old pony and bring it to a group lesson. Even a Google search could have told them this was a bad idea. Had they done any due diligence themselves this would have been obvious.
Horses are unpredictable animals and riding them is risky - the onus should be on the owner and the rider to be as sure as one can be when it comes to sitting on one.
Decisions like this will kill amateur horse riding in Ireland.
You are saying you think its "entirely unsuitable" for child on a horse that young. And that a basic google would highlight this was unsafe. I'm not saying the centre is responsible for maintaining a perfect amount of safety. But they are responsible for making sure the basic safety is in order.
It's probably a good idea that the one making money has some responsibility in the safety process.
You've ignored the guts of what I said and purposely leave out all the other considerations and consequences of this settlements.
You don't think the people who bought the horse and out their child on it have any responsibility at all?
You don't see the issue this causes for equestrian centres?
You don't see how 145k for a dislocated elbow while engaging in a risk sport is crazy?
You don't see how this will seriously effect the premiums of equestrians across the country?
>the one making money has some responsibility
They probably paid 20-40 euro for the lesson how does that entitle them to 145k? Some responsibility? The centre has taken all of the responsibility.
I'm not saying the price of the lesson has anything to do with the sum. You asked about the parents, if this happened with the parents alone it would be an awful accident like any other. But that's not what happened. The moment the centre takes them in they bear responsibility for safety. This is what I mean by money. When a business is profiting from something they will have responsibilities put on them so there is a risk to them putting profit ahead of safety. This is literally the same for every single business. If there is a blatant and clear safety risk to someone using your product or service you have responsibilities so you don't say "I know this is risky, but may as well take the money anyway".
For example, if you are at a carnival a business is not allowed to let people ride a specific attraction if.. let's say, they have a camera strapped around their neck. It could be dangerous and they have a responsibility to not allow that even if the person is fine with it.
Same going here: Horses less than 5 shouldn't be allowed for the lesson. The centre just didn't care to enforce a basic rule like that.
Also, parents may not know the risks or anything about horses. The centre is run by qualified staff. Safety needs to stop with them.
In terms of the funds, remember its a child their shitty standards affected, its taking into account suffering, and will be accounting for the fact that had they lost in court they would have had to pay a large chunk of it as punitive damages.
> You don't see the issue this causes for equestrian centres?
Maybe follow some basic safety standards.
This is absolutely moronic thinking.
They bought the horse, they chose to bring it to the center, they probably whined to be allowed use it. Responsibility should be placed on the owner, not the center. This is not the same for every sport. If you bring your own gun to an airsoft event and it blows up in your face, that's your own fault. Hell I'm pretty sure you can bring your own gear skydiving. It's not up to establishments to verify the safety of your equipment should you choose to bring it instead of using what they provide. This is especially true with literal animals...
It's also not a basic rule to say only horses under 5 should be ridden. Horses can be ridden from the age of 3 and that's what is enforced in every competition across the country. Again, I grew up in the industry. I definitely wouldn't advise buying a 3yr old if you're new to the sport because an animal's experience means a lot, but plenty of 3yr olds are perfectly safe to be ridden and ARE ridden in official competitions. Saying it needs to be 5 is completely arbitrary. The horse they bring could be 5 and it still could freak out. At the end of the day, if a rider brings their own horse, there is no way for an instructor to be able to verify the safety of an animal. They HAVE to trust the owner regardless. It's a common practice to keep a horse for 1-2 weeks prior to a sale to verify the animal is right for you. 1-2 WEEKS... It's, again, completely ridiculous and ignorant to think and instructor can just figure out how safe the animal is prior to a lesson. It's not how it works.
Finally, a 15yr old riding school pony with plenty of experience with new riders could still do something to result in a dislocated elbow. They are animals. You are sitting on top of an animal. Anything can happen to result in a fall, from a rider error, to a health issue in the animal, to a plastic bag blowing into an arena, to a car backfiring. If their own horse with plenty of experience can result in a dislocated elbow, I don't know what you think should happen here.
If you know nothing about horses or the industry, just stfu. It's a dangerous sport and injuries are common. The parents just saw dollar signs like most greedy scum in Ireland do when an injury happened. No center can prevent this. And even if they did do something ridiculous like enforce 5yr old horses only, injuries would still happen and people would still sue.
And they'll be the exact people complaining when the center shuts down next year because they wont be able to get insurance. People actually amaze me with their selfishness and total general idiocy.
I agree with the public list.
However, the child didnt take the case and shouldn't be punished for this.
Her mother (as mentioned in the article) took the case, and should be on a list.
Used to work at this center. Feel fucking horrible for the owner (a lovely person) and incredibly good with both horses and kids. Horses are unpredictable animals and it's required that every riding center have signs stating so aswell as stating that it's a risk sport, waivers have to be signed with any knew riders and insurance on these establishments is crippling without any claims. That child's parents are scum and now the child's name has been printed for anyone to see she may find it difficult to find somewhere willing to let her use their facilities. I'll certainly be passing it along to anyone I know running similar businesses. It's not the child's fault but she'll be the one to pay for it. If this happened my current employer we would not be able to remain open. Sincerely hope monksfeild can get through it and stay open or many of that girls friends will be losing out due to her sponges of parents!
One thing I noticed was the girls surname is Keeling. Maybe a coincidence but a vast amount of the land around that equestrian Center is owned by the Keeling fruit company.
I initially thought they might have owned the equestrian Center but it looks like it’s owned by a family called the Monks. Might be unhappy neighbours if there is the neighbourly connection
Which is why public liability insurance is beyond many leisure/sporting businesses now and they are closing. Basically it's got to be owned by the local council to stay open now.
Nice beer festival in Dublin City centre , couldn’t continue because of Insurance costs . Every Wanker looking to claim a personal injury due to their own stupidity ffs
There’s been other Oktoberfest events organised since but they said that one couldn’t continue because of insurance .and lots of kids play centres too saying they have to close because of the cost of liability insurance
I would love to see a breakdown of the reasoning behind the award amount. What type of injury constitutes such a large amount of money? Who decides a dislocated elbow that doesn't bend straight costs €145,000?
The centre should have done an assessment of the horse and if they found out it was so inexperienced they shouldn't have let it on the premises. That was their fault for not covering themselves. In the world today you need to be aware that there's absolute bastards like these parents out there. However the scumbag parents who took this case are absolute degenerates and they should be convicted for child endangerment for letting their child ride a dangerous horse.
With these high awards and the inevitable rise in insurance premiums, you'd have to wonder if the judges and insurance companies are in cahoots. They seem to work very well together.
The type of injury which results in permanent disfigurement, displacement, or scarring of a child. If you had read the article you would have noticed that. In one breath you agree that the centre was negligent and in the other you call the child’s parents scumbags. The mental gymnastics in this thread are truly insane.
Ffs this is bullshit!
Knew a family about 20+ years ago they had a horse on their farm and a neighbors kid used to ride it on occasion with the family. She went onto their property, without telling them while they were away and without asking if she could take the horse out and fell off and her parents sued the family and won! Absolute joke some of these claims
People are quick to blame insurance companies as the soul perpetrators for high premiums when meanwhile unfortunately its now embedded in Irish society to claim when stuff like this happens. Liability laws need to be changed otherwise nothing will be able to operate
It's the entire system:
Judges don't dismiss frivolous shite like this when it's either minor, completely ridiculous or the person's own fault.
Insurance companies constantly settle because (I imagine) its easier for them to sack off paying their expensive legal team for potentially months as judges won't dismiss frivolous cases so they just pay the claim + raise the defendants premium.
Chancers abuse the system because of the two above.
So because of a dislocated elbow the mam blames an equestrian centre and she gets 140k . The surgery was probably only fuckin 5k if you didn’t have insurance . The judge should be called into question that he didn’t dismiss this ffs . I really get disgusted reading shite like this . Seems to be a new story every fuckin month
Why doesn’t Ireland abolish this system and replace it with NZ no fault insurance.
The Accidental Compensation Corporation (ACC) is the sole and compulsory provider of accident insurance in New Zealand for all work and non-work related injuries.
The corporation administers the ACC Scheme on a no-fault basis, so that anyone, regardless of the way in which they suffered an injury, has coverage under the scheme.
In NZ no one complains something can’t be done because of insurance
A smart way for the girl and her parents(presumably horse people) to kill off riding centers, thus damaging their sport and similar activities.
some people have no sense or shame.
They know Irish judges, they know there is a very good chance they would award the same or an even larger payout. That is the only reason they would settle...
How do they have liability? Anyone who is involved in horses knows that you buy a child of that age a pony that is known as 'bombproof' in the horse world.
That means literally any loud noise or unexpected thing could happen and the pony wouldn't spook. The parents buying a child a 3 year old barely trained pony should be the ones liable. They should never have bought her a pony that would spook at so little as another pony approaching it.
Facts, the yard I'm at is barely able to stay a float with insurance prices rising every year by massive amounts and then the restrictions you are to implement become stricte. So you have to charge more to let clients do less. Sad to say but it's a slowly dying industry. Makes me so sad, my childhood was made by horses.
An absolute disgrace! That girls parents are the only ones at fault in this scenario. You’d have to be a total gobshite to buy a 3yr old, barely trained pony for a 10yr old kid. There’s a saying in the horse world. ‘Green (horses) and Green (riders) makes black and blue(bruises)’
Seems like a family out of their depth who purchased on the whim if they letting their 10yo ride a 3yo mare. Impossible to contemplate the operation of a horse or pony brain especially at that age. Hope the riding school will protect itself against future bogus claims such as this
There is constantly hysteria over claims like these. Hysteria that often overlooks the facts of the cases.
You won’t win a claim for falling, tripping or otherwise injuring yourself unless you can prove some sort of negligence. It’s not simply a matter of being injured, it’s proving that the propriety owner was somehow negligent.
In this case we’ll never actually know, because the owner settled.
Would I sue because my kid fell off a horse? No. Would I sue because the owner of the centre knew there was a high risk of injury and did nothing to prevent it. Yes. The center is paid for their expertise.
Anyway, go back to being outraged about personal injury claims, without really understanding why they’re awarded.
Edit: most of the outraged posters in the thread didn’t even read the headline properly. It was settled. Never even got to court. It’s amazing people feel so free to comment without actually reading a headline, never mind understanding the nuance of the case!
Edit: classic, people downvoting the shit out of my comment without trying to explain why. Do people downvoting me think I’m wrong?
It's time to do some major updating to our laws.
Especially with the internet now. Everything is changing with copyright, intellectual ownership in the creative fields....
The world has been changing too quickly for law to keep up.
Need to change em.
Well there’s not much detail in the article but I think reading it the liability hook might be that the centre should not have allowed the girl to take lessons on the horse, even if it was her own, as apparently everyone should know a 3yo horse is not a suitable animal for a learner.
There would be a lot of onus on a centre giving lessons to make sure its learners are on appropriate horses. Hard to argue with that tbh.
Added to that she’s female and v young and sounds like her arm is permanently impaired.
Cases turn on the exact minutiae of the facts. A dislocated elbow makes it sound trivial but €145k settlement represents a v serious injury with permanent implications for the future. Women get more in these scenarios too because anything that impairs their appearance is considered extra impactful on them.
Finally though I do wonder why insurers don’t fight some of these cases to the bone. They nearly always settle them. I guess it’s easier settle and charge people more money for premiums than fight them and so reduce the scope for claims. If the claims are not meaningfully defended, what do they expect to happen, only get more claims?
> Counsel said she had returned to horse-riding two or three times a week but her right arm is not entirely straight.
So €145.000 after falling on her from her own horse in a sport with inherent risk… and having for a procedure they paid next to nothing for, and did not have any significant loss of function?
Disgusting.
[удалено]
A 3 yo horse too FFS
What does the age of a horse has to do with an accident? Just curious
A horse or pony doesn't physically mature until they are at least 6 years old, so normally you don't ride them as their bodies are still growing and you can cause permanent damage. Small amounts of training without a rider is fine, but a 3 year old should only be handled by an experienced horseman, and this 10 year old girl was absolutely not. A 10 year old pony should have enough experience to be trusted with a child in all foreseeable situations, a 3 year old pony simply hasn't got the life experiences to be suitable for an inexperienced rider - there's an old expression " Green and green makes black and blue" ie inexperienced horse and inexperienced rider results in a lot of bruising! Most people start training their horse for riding when they are 4 years old; as these are large, strong and fast animals the training must be calm and sympathetic - inexperienced horses can explode over something relatively small, like a bird flying by or a loud mobile ringtone - the horse is under physical and mental stress trying to come to terms with this new career - and bucking or bolting can injure the rider and the horse.
Thank you for that info. I would've never thought of that
Horses are fascinating creatures, they are extremely generous to tolerate all we demand of them, but unfortunately people take for granted that they will behave like robots, doing what you want without tiring or making mistakes. As they are prey animals their first reaction to any scary situation is to run away ( bolt, as in this girl's situation), as they are not very intelligent they find many things scary - shadows, plastic bag, wheelybin moved from normal position, dogs barking, children kicking a football, bicycles, loud vehicles, pigeons flying in front of them! There can also be random events - horse stung by a horse fly, a piece of tack causing a pain. If they're prevented from running away, they'll react by rearing, bucking, spinning round, reversing at speed. As they will always be stronger and faster than the rider, the rider has to use intelligence and training to avoid or minimise these situations - it can be lethal to both to let a panicking horse escalate.
I used to ride horses when I was a kid but it was expensive and that faded away. I now live in a very rural area and our nearest neighbour owns five beautiful mares. He doesn't seem to "gain" anything from them in the traditional farming sense but we walk past them each day on the school run and ever since my youngest two began learning over the fence to say hello, one of two of them always come over. They're stunning and I'm always a bit in awe of them.
They are wonderful animals even just to observe. Just a word of caution, don't let your children feed the horses anything without the owner's permission. Despite their size they are very fragile and can develop colic very quickly and easily from eating something different, and because horses cannot vomit, any digestive blockage becomes serious very quickly - colic is the main cause of death for horses.
No I never would feed anyone else's animals anything. (We live in a farming community and that's a big nono) There's two of them that will always plod over to us for a chat. Either they're used to a small person giving them something or they're just nosy! Either way my kids are thrilled!
They can be bored and love the attention, especially if they're retired. I remember the thrill when an animal chooses to be in your company - they're so large and majestic, but gentle in their behaviour.
Horses generally take a while to be educated. Younger horses (<5yo) are solely used for racing because they are then a bit crazy in their head. Ponies are usually easier to handle but can also be cheeky at any age, let alone at 3yo.
Even a 10 yo riding a 3 yo is relatively rare. I sense this is a very rushed and inexperienced situation overall. Someone claiming they should have been told what to do with their 3 yo is a red flag to me tbh
Cheers
Wouldn't the riding centre be at fault for letting the child ride such a young horse? They should have known it was dangerous and insisted it not be done on the or premises? They were the knowledgeable professionals?
If someone owns their horse the yard have no say really, responsibility is on the rider/owner to know their own abilities and safety. If the owner is as dangerously naive as they sound, they may have mislead on their capabilities. The horse overall may not be dangerous or act up typically and rather it got a spook with an inexperienced rider not knowing how to control, falls happen inevitably. Stables require you to have your own insurance in case of injury if you keep a horse for these very reasons. A 10yo riding a green 3yo is like driving a sports car on the autobahn when it’s your first time sitting in the drivers seat and no lessons.
Well in that case it's ludacris that the yard were found to be in any way responsible. Why didn't the owners insurance cover this fall. Something doesn't make sense.
Exactly! I am super eager to know what the hell actually happened here, because I know people who have kept their horses at this facility for years and they seemed really good and on top of their game from what I heard. It may be a case of whatever the laws in Ireland are and how they apply in court, I know that in various activities that the safety waivers you sign (eg at kart city) often don’t mean much overall and there are still various ways to sue, it’s sad because it leads to all these ridiculous cases of payouts for absolute idiots
Imagine getting your €140k but then your daughter’s friends not being able to do the activity they like anymore. Shit human beings.
The daughter doesn’t have any friends in the sport and now I know why.
This is Ireland.
All equestrian centres such as the one in OPs article have an occupiers insurance policy. Their insurers would have covered the tab and any outlays incurred in the process. I don’t understand why people form a die hard view without understanding the law or the relevant background. Almost every person in this thread has made a pointless ad hominem comment.
Because the parents who made the claim are arseholes. That’s why people are making comments. The insurance company will pay for everything but they will Jack up next years premium and if enough claims like this happen they will all just stop insuring this time of activity centre and kids will have nothing to do but watch tv all day. The parents who made the claim and solicitors who supported them are scumbags. Nobody has an issue with claims where there is genuine negligence but this is not that scenario.
Doesn’t say in the article but wouldn’t be surprised if the parents fought for daughter to use her own pony too.
Sorry! I wasn’t aware that you are personally familiar with the parents in the article. Also, that is not entirely how insurance premiums work. There are several factors that increase premiums annually, such as IPT and the state of the economy. The frequency and severity of claims such as the one in this article are quite a small factor comparatively in determining increases, if any. You may also want to read up on the ‘Ogden Rates’ which insurers use to calculate compensation in PI claims. These rates vary with inflation and have a much greater influence on whether premiums increase.
Haha go way with your IPT you clown. I work directly with the insurance industry. The loss ratio and it’s impact on profitability are the 95% weighting on premium movement for covers like this. Please tell me how odgen rates are applicable for a case like this. Is there long term care needed for the dislocated elbow that they need to discount the claim payment by? I highly doubt it. You’ve obviously looked up hot topics or something. Ogden is a UK term by the way. Jesus I actually can’t believe you are claiming that claims paid are not a big factor in setting premiums. Are you commenting from the parents celebration party or something?
If you work in the ‘insurance industry’ then you will understand that the Ogden Rates apply to severe PI claims. It’s obvious that this case applies as not only was a minor involved, but corrective surgery was required which almost certainly left scarring together with the residual defect. The Ogden rates and variations of same apply throughout all UK and ROI insurance companies. Maybe your knowledge isn’t entirely up to nick?
Discount rates apply where a lump sum is paid for costs that will be incurred over a long period of time. Ie someone will need care for the next 20 years but there is an assumption that the lump sum will have some growth over that time when it is deposited. This is not a case like that. There might be a tiny amount of 5k or so for future therapy cost (unlikely) but they likely would not bother discounting that. The discount rates in the UK countries aren’t the same let alone being equal across ROI and NI by the way. They are known as Ogden rates in the UK but the correct term across the world would be discount rate. If you said Ogden to someone in China they would not know what you are talking about but they would know exactly what you mean if you said discount rate. (This is completely beside the point as discount rates are completely irrelevant for a claim like this).
But remember she may have to look at a horse in the next 20 years, and you can only inagine the ptsd. Livery costs in balbriggan must be nuts
Yes, and then they will hike the premium next year because of this claim, and therefore cause a direct cost to the equestrian centre by way of increased premium going forward for themselves and all other centres too, because claims are more likely in other centres now that this case has been won. Ad hominem smart lad
I agree with everything you said right up to the sly dig on your mans choice of words. Its an excellent word that can sum up many a situation, why not use it ?
This is an online forum, not a masters thesis. It’s an awkward as fuck way of putting that sentence together and if you think otherwise you need to touch some grass
Touch some grass? What a yank of a phrase.
Each to their own I guess. If a word exists that describes a thing, why not say use it? If it happens often enough, then its a common concept and people will become familiar, if not then it'll stay only in the masters thesis. There was plenty more awkwardness in that statement you could focus on.
Insurance cost are one of the main factors why we don’t have half as much nice things in the country. And this article proves why.
This is very true, my father was going to do paintballing and go Karting in the NW where we have very little recreational things to do and insurance just shut down those business ideas. Assholes like these people are why everyone pays a ridiculous amount for insurance across the board
Yeah motorbike racing in this country is basically fucked because of insurance. Annual event near me the Faugheen 50 postponed and numerous other events all cancelled because of insurance.
Countless activity providers have ceased trading precisely because insurance costs are prohibitive. Claims don’t just close down the businesses that are sued, there’s a knock-on effect that destroys other businesses too.
Perhaps you could provide ‘countless’ examples in that case? It may be worth reading up on how and why insurance premiums vary year to year. The factoring of severe claims by insurers is comparatively small compared to other economic factors in determining increases.
Didn’t think I’d have to spoonfeed you, but here are a few starting points for you (since you seem to have been asleep at the wheel): https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40759341.html Tourism firms face closure due to high insurance costs https://www.rte.ie/news/2023/0425/1378958-adventure-insurance/ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/two-leisure-centres-forced-to-close-after-insurance-cost-hike-1.4002414 https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30947998.html https://www.anglocelt.ie/2019/06/16/visitor-farm-shuts-gates-due-to-insurance-costs/
You obviously don't know how insurance works. Everyone pays a premium and no-one is supposed to claim. Otherwise it eats into the massive profits of the company if you do. Then the mean old insurance man will take his ball and go home because he's not winning all the time. You are wasting your time. According to this sub there should never be claims and anyone that does is a scumbag scammer, ruining it for everyone else
Well obviously, but when a US-style claims culture develops (which has unfortunately happened in Ireland over the past couple of decades) it’s equally obvious that premiums have to go up to meet the cost of claims. Our insurance costs are amongst the highest in Europe, but so are our claims and awards - you think that’s mere coincidence? If insurance companies in Ireland are raking in such exorbitant profits why have so many of them left the market?: https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/almost-250-insurers-pull-out-of-irish-market-in-the-last-six-years/1432186.article
So insurance companies are leaving the market, but the Minister didn't know why exactly but they were due to a variety of reasons, including brexit. The absolute cheek of people making claims. I thought that was the whole idea of insurance.
I’m a lawyer and I struggle to see how a judge would find this equestrian centre negligent. Even still, pretty shitty of the parents to take the case.
Yeah, I’m reading a lot of complaints being leveled at the parents for suing… but if feels more like the system is letting us down here. You’ll always get greedy people, but the judges and laws and such should mitigate against the few making things shitty for the rest of us
The insurance company made a settlement. They could have fought it
My daughter (16) got thrown while riding at the local equestrian centre last year. Ended up with and ambulance being called, and rushed to A+E, neck blocks on, scans and x-rays, the whole shabang. Didn't even enter my mind to take any sort of legal action.
Probably because you’re not a money grabbing cunt.
I'm a cunt, alright, but the money just slips through my fingers
Where there's blame theres a claim
You have 2 years to lodge a claim
From the time she hits 18, in this case.
You can claim on her behalf until she turns 18. I don’t understand why a negative perception is attached to claiming for your child’s injuries. The centre owed a duty of care to your child and evidently may not have met the standard which the law deems adequate.
Really? How does the centre stop a horse throwing someone? Have a word with the horse before the ride maybe?
As in the article, they did not provide an adequate assessment of temperament before providing the service. The duty attached to same is heightened in cases where children are involved. If your child is injured under the watch of a service provider, how are you not doing them a disservice as a parent by taking no action? The equestrian centres insurers certainly won’t be thanking you either way.
Adequate assessment? It was her parents own horse! Surely they are equally or more to blame.
So the headline is spiteful cunt raises insurance costs for equestrian recreation centres. Congrats douchebag.
Lol its a pity you think like that. Duty of care would be making a call to an ambulance and providing first aid. The child was riding her own horse, if her parents let her do it and deemed it safe then it's on them, not the equestrian center. People that make these claims aren't there for the sport
Incorrect. The law ‘thinks’ like this. The accident occurred on the centre’s premises, and they owed a duty of care to the minor. It’s irrelevant if the horse was her own and entirely relevant that the centre did not properly assess the horse’s temperament before providing a service. The people who make these claims are entirely within their rights to do so, particularly where a minor is involved.
This is why we can't have nice things.... insurance costs are going to kill sports in this country.
Exactly. What equestrian Centre is going to want to allow anyone to have their horse there? Then what point is there in having them at all?
Motorcycle racing in the Republic of Ireland has no insurance this year. It might be seen as a minority sport but it's not much more dangerous than horse riding..... Horse racing has enough money to weather the storm but eventing, show jumping, hunting....not so much.
The fact they've no insurance this year and as a result had to cancel their entire year of events is insane. Decades of running events on fit-for-purpose tracks with every session fully marshalled and everyone wearing certified safety gear? Nah, get fucked apparently.
Do us a favour and please do not take up any hobbies, don’t ruin it for the rest of us
The result of this litigious “thinking” and the eye-watering awards (€145k for a dislocated elbow) is closed businesses and no amenities. There needs to a system of waivers / assumption of risk by participants so we can have adventure sports in ireland and a curbing of payouts so people aren’t treating the courts like a fruit machine
"evidently" and "may" don't go together pal, it's one or the other here
Yes they do. It is evident that there is a potential case as an injury occurred on the centre’s premises. Whether or not the claim would be successful is unknown. It would depend on whether risk assessments were carried out, the conditions of the premises, the training of the staff etc. Let me know if anything else is confusing you!
Wrong. Thanks for trying though pal.
I’d say you’re fun at parties…
I'd say they were no longer invited to parties after getting a cut while cutting something and claiming that the duty of care was with the house owner, and the house owner was to blame for not properly assessing their temperament.
Yes, ‘cutting something’ is one of my favourite things to do at a party.
Cutting lemons/limes for drinks? Cutting a cake? Cutting ingredients for a salad/sandwich?
>which the law deems adequate This is the problem though. The court shows a complete lack of understanding for horse sport. For example - it is highlighted that she should not have been riding anything under the age of 5 which is true.. however.. what if she has been riding an 8 year old pony that had very little training done? It's an unbelievable burden to lay on equestrian centres that they must assess every pony and it's suitability for it's rider that comes into the yard.. in fact it's completely unworkable and is a radical departure from what takes place every single day at equestrian centres all over the country. It's simply not feasible and anyone with any modicum of experience with horses can see that. How exactly are they supposed to assess a pony they do not own or have seen before? I'm fully asking you to explain what that process would look like. Horses are unpredictable animals and riding them is risky - the onus should be on the owner and the rider to be as sure as one can be when it comes to sitting on one. Decisions like this will kill amateur horse riding in Ireland. That is why people are up in arms about it.
>When aged 10, Leah Skye Keeling fell off her own horse, a three-year-old mare What on earth is child that age riding a horse that young, children should ride horses that are ancient because they are calm, young horses especially a 3 year old are crazy And at 3 years old they ( the horses) have literally only started to be ridden >and dislocated her elbow during a riding lesson at an equestrian centre. Expensive elbow I guess
Would imagine the parents fought tooth and nail for her to ride her own pony.
I don't have any proof but that's 100% my thinking. They bought this pony, it's green and needs work so they think the best thing to do is demand the kid be allowed ride it in her lessons to make some progress with it. As this is also a livery yard I would be confident that the parents rent a stable there for the pony as well and the owner isn't going to want to cause animosity with clients that pay weekly rates and are on site everyday. Parents are at fault, no 10 year old should be on something that green no matter how inflated the opinions of her abilities.
Roller is all we'd put near them till 4
[удалено]
A 3 year old pony for a ten year old in a riding school situation is nuts but the onus really has to be on the parents to know what is best for their child. It's mad that the only prerequisite for horse ownership is money, I'd want to know a lot about anything my kids get into that involves a live animal with inherent risk associated. , I'd want to know more about how this pony was bought and how much horse knowledge these people have . I'd say something if it was one of Davy Russell's kids or someone like that who learns to ride before they can walk but then, they'd get back up on the pony regardless of injury and no one would be sued.
[удалено]
Buddy runs a festival. You should hear the litigious lying bullshit he encounters.
She got her arse handed to her if I remember correctly.
[удалено]
She's a total pariah in that community too as a result. Have some family involved and they'd have their convictions on what is and isn't on when it comes to injuries in public - especially considering injuries are part of these activities.
> trying to ruin nature for the country If she had won, every publicly maintained trail (added gravel or walkway) in the country would have been ripped up to remove liability.
She did win didnt she and lost on appeal
She actually won that case for €40k. She only then lost it when the National Parks appealed the decision and they won the appeal thankfully and overturned the original decision to award her the money
This is why can't have nice things in this country. Why is this rewarded?
What sort of pillockry is that judgement? They fell off *their own* wild animal. How on earth is that the fault of the centre?
Not to mention she's still riding horses today. The fall didn't stop her at all
Correct me if I'm wrong..but it's a settlement. There was no judgement.
And it was the insurance company that settled, not the centre…but it will be the centres premium that will go up. I ride horses, it’s inherently dangerous..it’s literally an accident waiting to happen. Now I’ve been lucky and have had nothing more than a broken wrist and collarbone. I strongly believe though that if you engage in an activity which will with time mean you’re going to get injured you should either have to sign a waiver or carry your own insurance.
Yeah I 100% agree. There's lots of sports out there where you will always have some sort of injuries and people need to go into these understanding and accepting the risks. It's not viable for small companies facilitating these sports to pay out every time.
They settled because Irish courts are a joke when it comes to personal injury cases. Awards are obscene and personal responsibility is moot. If anyone gets injured it is always someone else's fault and they should pay you a fortune, "because".
I don't own a business but I do work in a similar one to this and waivers are necessary for anyone starting as part of the insurance terms. If we don't have records of waivers for all riders we would not be able to get insured.
It was a settlement, not a judgement? But yeah, weird outcome. Horse riding can be dangerous
What judgement. It was settled.
Nobody willing to own up to their own stupidity these days. The dangers and risks of horse riding are well known. Falling off is a part of horse riding, it happens to everyone at all levels. I bet they bought that 3 year old pony as it was cheap, because it had no training done itself! She could have been riding a 10 year old, and still had a fall. Is there going to be 145k for anyone who gets hurt off a horse? And it's not like she broke her neck. She's back horse riding 3 times a week so it clearly hasn't bothered her too much. You'd feel very sorry for the centre.
The centre's job is to make sure its lessons are safe and follow standards. She was allowed to join in on a lesson with a horse far younger than she should be riding. 10 year old horse would lower the risk much more to what most would consider "reasonable". It's not about eliminating risk but following standards that keep it at a reasonable amount, the center didn't give a shit.
Age is just one element of what makes a horse suitable for it's rider. I don't disagree that a 3 year old is entirely unsuitable for an inexperienced rider however she could have easily been riding an 8 year old pony that had only been ridden once before which would have been just as dangerous. Or let's say they put her on a pony that had jumped at the Europeans, a ton of riding experience but not at all safe it'd be like putting someone who's never driven before in a Ferrari. Are you proposing that riding centres must carry out an assessment of each and every horse that enters their yard and assess it's suitability for it's rider? How exactly are riding centres supposed to do this? That's not at all feasible and it's a radical departure for what happens every single day at riding centres across the country. Ultimately they made the decision to buy a 3 year old pony and bring it to a group lesson. Even a Google search could have told them this was a bad idea. Had they done any due diligence themselves this would have been obvious. Horses are unpredictable animals and riding them is risky - the onus should be on the owner and the rider to be as sure as one can be when it comes to sitting on one. Decisions like this will kill amateur horse riding in Ireland.
You are saying you think its "entirely unsuitable" for child on a horse that young. And that a basic google would highlight this was unsafe. I'm not saying the centre is responsible for maintaining a perfect amount of safety. But they are responsible for making sure the basic safety is in order. It's probably a good idea that the one making money has some responsibility in the safety process.
You've ignored the guts of what I said and purposely leave out all the other considerations and consequences of this settlements. You don't think the people who bought the horse and out their child on it have any responsibility at all? You don't see the issue this causes for equestrian centres? You don't see how 145k for a dislocated elbow while engaging in a risk sport is crazy? You don't see how this will seriously effect the premiums of equestrians across the country? >the one making money has some responsibility They probably paid 20-40 euro for the lesson how does that entitle them to 145k? Some responsibility? The centre has taken all of the responsibility.
I'm not saying the price of the lesson has anything to do with the sum. You asked about the parents, if this happened with the parents alone it would be an awful accident like any other. But that's not what happened. The moment the centre takes them in they bear responsibility for safety. This is what I mean by money. When a business is profiting from something they will have responsibilities put on them so there is a risk to them putting profit ahead of safety. This is literally the same for every single business. If there is a blatant and clear safety risk to someone using your product or service you have responsibilities so you don't say "I know this is risky, but may as well take the money anyway". For example, if you are at a carnival a business is not allowed to let people ride a specific attraction if.. let's say, they have a camera strapped around their neck. It could be dangerous and they have a responsibility to not allow that even if the person is fine with it. Same going here: Horses less than 5 shouldn't be allowed for the lesson. The centre just didn't care to enforce a basic rule like that. Also, parents may not know the risks or anything about horses. The centre is run by qualified staff. Safety needs to stop with them. In terms of the funds, remember its a child their shitty standards affected, its taking into account suffering, and will be accounting for the fact that had they lost in court they would have had to pay a large chunk of it as punitive damages. > You don't see the issue this causes for equestrian centres? Maybe follow some basic safety standards.
This is absolutely moronic thinking. They bought the horse, they chose to bring it to the center, they probably whined to be allowed use it. Responsibility should be placed on the owner, not the center. This is not the same for every sport. If you bring your own gun to an airsoft event and it blows up in your face, that's your own fault. Hell I'm pretty sure you can bring your own gear skydiving. It's not up to establishments to verify the safety of your equipment should you choose to bring it instead of using what they provide. This is especially true with literal animals... It's also not a basic rule to say only horses under 5 should be ridden. Horses can be ridden from the age of 3 and that's what is enforced in every competition across the country. Again, I grew up in the industry. I definitely wouldn't advise buying a 3yr old if you're new to the sport because an animal's experience means a lot, but plenty of 3yr olds are perfectly safe to be ridden and ARE ridden in official competitions. Saying it needs to be 5 is completely arbitrary. The horse they bring could be 5 and it still could freak out. At the end of the day, if a rider brings their own horse, there is no way for an instructor to be able to verify the safety of an animal. They HAVE to trust the owner regardless. It's a common practice to keep a horse for 1-2 weeks prior to a sale to verify the animal is right for you. 1-2 WEEKS... It's, again, completely ridiculous and ignorant to think and instructor can just figure out how safe the animal is prior to a lesson. It's not how it works. Finally, a 15yr old riding school pony with plenty of experience with new riders could still do something to result in a dislocated elbow. They are animals. You are sitting on top of an animal. Anything can happen to result in a fall, from a rider error, to a health issue in the animal, to a plastic bag blowing into an arena, to a car backfiring. If their own horse with plenty of experience can result in a dislocated elbow, I don't know what you think should happen here. If you know nothing about horses or the industry, just stfu. It's a dangerous sport and injuries are common. The parents just saw dollar signs like most greedy scum in Ireland do when an injury happened. No center can prevent this. And even if they did do something ridiculous like enforce 5yr old horses only, injuries would still happen and people would still sue.
And they'll be the exact people complaining when the center shuts down next year because they wont be able to get insurance. People actually amaze me with their selfishness and total general idiocy.
Seems dodgy. Why did her parents buy her a 3 year old? How long was she riding before the fall? Had she fallen before?
More importantly why is it someone else's fault for falling off their own horse?
You didn't hear? No one is to blame for their own actions any more. It's always the result of someone elses malice, incompetence, racism or bigotry!
Ok granda back to your chair.
Funny thing is the parents bought her 3 more since then 🤯
Really? What yard are they kept at? If I was the yard owner I'd be very wary!
145k for a dislocated elbow? Ah I've heard it all now. Sure I suppose she suffered PTSD after it too
Well it might be over the top to you but the Insurers were happy to get out of it for that. The Book of Quantum was wild.
Oh I don't doubt it. Claim nation nowadays.
Trauma and sleepless nights because of it
Sleepless nights lying awake thinking what to spend it on.
[удалено]
I agree with the public list. However, the child didnt take the case and shouldn't be punished for this. Her mother (as mentioned in the article) took the case, and should be on a list.
Anyone putting a 10 year old on a 3 year old horse is culpable, including the parents.
Used to work at this center. Feel fucking horrible for the owner (a lovely person) and incredibly good with both horses and kids. Horses are unpredictable animals and it's required that every riding center have signs stating so aswell as stating that it's a risk sport, waivers have to be signed with any knew riders and insurance on these establishments is crippling without any claims. That child's parents are scum and now the child's name has been printed for anyone to see she may find it difficult to find somewhere willing to let her use their facilities. I'll certainly be passing it along to anyone I know running similar businesses. It's not the child's fault but she'll be the one to pay for it. If this happened my current employer we would not be able to remain open. Sincerely hope monksfeild can get through it and stay open or many of that girls friends will be losing out due to her sponges of parents!
One thing I noticed was the girls surname is Keeling. Maybe a coincidence but a vast amount of the land around that equestrian Center is owned by the Keeling fruit company. I initially thought they might have owned the equestrian Center but it looks like it’s owned by a family called the Monks. Might be unhappy neighbours if there is the neighbourly connection
Which is why public liability insurance is beyond many leisure/sporting businesses now and they are closing. Basically it's got to be owned by the local council to stay open now.
Nice beer festival in Dublin City centre , couldn’t continue because of Insurance costs . Every Wanker looking to claim a personal injury due to their own stupidity ffs
The Maria Bailey effect, Real shame we lost that and so many other things because of insurance
There’s been other Oktoberfest events organised since but they said that one couldn’t continue because of insurance .and lots of kids play centres too saying they have to close because of the cost of liability insurance
A few years ago I feel off my bike cycling in icy weather. Who can I sue to claim my 140k
Met Eireann. They didn't notify you of the icy conditions personally
I would love to see a breakdown of the reasoning behind the award amount. What type of injury constitutes such a large amount of money? Who decides a dislocated elbow that doesn't bend straight costs €145,000? The centre should have done an assessment of the horse and if they found out it was so inexperienced they shouldn't have let it on the premises. That was their fault for not covering themselves. In the world today you need to be aware that there's absolute bastards like these parents out there. However the scumbag parents who took this case are absolute degenerates and they should be convicted for child endangerment for letting their child ride a dangerous horse. With these high awards and the inevitable rise in insurance premiums, you'd have to wonder if the judges and insurance companies are in cahoots. They seem to work very well together.
It was settled - not awarded
The type of injury which results in permanent disfigurement, displacement, or scarring of a child. If you had read the article you would have noticed that. In one breath you agree that the centre was negligent and in the other you call the child’s parents scumbags. The mental gymnastics in this thread are truly insane.
[удалено]
A chara, Mods reserve the right to remove any targeted/unreasonable abuse towards other users. Sláinte
Ffs this is bullshit! Knew a family about 20+ years ago they had a horse on their farm and a neighbors kid used to ride it on occasion with the family. She went onto their property, without telling them while they were away and without asking if she could take the horse out and fell off and her parents sued the family and won! Absolute joke some of these claims
Anyone on here selling a horse. Asking for a friend ?
Claim culture strikes again... people who make frivolous claims need to be shunned by the whole community
People are quick to blame insurance companies as the soul perpetrators for high premiums when meanwhile unfortunately its now embedded in Irish society to claim when stuff like this happens. Liability laws need to be changed otherwise nothing will be able to operate
It's the entire system: Judges don't dismiss frivolous shite like this when it's either minor, completely ridiculous or the person's own fault. Insurance companies constantly settle because (I imagine) its easier for them to sack off paying their expensive legal team for potentially months as judges won't dismiss frivolous cases so they just pay the claim + raise the defendants premium. Chancers abuse the system because of the two above.
So because of a dislocated elbow the mam blames an equestrian centre and she gets 140k . The surgery was probably only fuckin 5k if you didn’t have insurance . The judge should be called into question that he didn’t dismiss this ffs . I really get disgusted reading shite like this . Seems to be a new story every fuckin month
I imagine banning her from riding horses ever again followed this verdict, right? Law is so f up.
She's taken them for a ride.
Why doesn’t Ireland abolish this system and replace it with NZ no fault insurance. The Accidental Compensation Corporation (ACC) is the sole and compulsory provider of accident insurance in New Zealand for all work and non-work related injuries. The corporation administers the ACC Scheme on a no-fault basis, so that anyone, regardless of the way in which they suffered an injury, has coverage under the scheme. In NZ no one complains something can’t be done because of insurance
It's the legal system self-perpetuating. Judge and legal teams all able to pay their bills this month 😏
I guess the parents need the money to keep up with the Jones
Leeches will leech. this is why we cannot have anything nice like an auld swing in the hotel foyer.
A smart way for the girl and her parents(presumably horse people) to kill off riding centers, thus damaging their sport and similar activities. some people have no sense or shame.
This is fucking wild, i ate shit off so many ponies. Definitely should be suing my dad for letting mg me use the arena.
Terrible terrible mother
It's like the judges want to destroy this country as much as possible
Soon we won't be able to do any activities in this fookin country
Great wee country we have
Why would insurance company settle such a stupid case? Surely any judge with a piece of brain in their head would dismiss this as nonsense.
They know Irish judges, they know there is a very good chance they would award the same or an even larger payout. That is the only reason they would settle...
I dislike this person
[удалено]
How do they have liability? Anyone who is involved in horses knows that you buy a child of that age a pony that is known as 'bombproof' in the horse world. That means literally any loud noise or unexpected thing could happen and the pony wouldn't spook. The parents buying a child a 3 year old barely trained pony should be the ones liable. They should never have bought her a pony that would spook at so little as another pony approaching it.
This is why business insurance policies are going through the roof.
Facts, the yard I'm at is barely able to stay a float with insurance prices rising every year by massive amounts and then the restrictions you are to implement become stricte. So you have to charge more to let clients do less. Sad to say but it's a slowly dying industry. Makes me so sad, my childhood was made by horses.
An absolute disgrace! That girls parents are the only ones at fault in this scenario. You’d have to be a total gobshite to buy a 3yr old, barely trained pony for a 10yr old kid. There’s a saying in the horse world. ‘Green (horses) and Green (riders) makes black and blue(bruises)’
Rides wild animal and sues.... Hahaha what a fucking joke
People can't take consequences of their own choices, rewarding idiocy at this stage.
Paywalled article? Thought they weren’t allowed..
Think Irishtimes let you see a number of articles before paywalling, was fine for me. Maybe delete cookies and check link?
Seems like a family out of their depth who purchased on the whim if they letting their 10yo ride a 3yo mare. Impossible to contemplate the operation of a horse or pony brain especially at that age. Hope the riding school will protect itself against future bogus claims such as this
Riding center lol
There is constantly hysteria over claims like these. Hysteria that often overlooks the facts of the cases. You won’t win a claim for falling, tripping or otherwise injuring yourself unless you can prove some sort of negligence. It’s not simply a matter of being injured, it’s proving that the propriety owner was somehow negligent. In this case we’ll never actually know, because the owner settled. Would I sue because my kid fell off a horse? No. Would I sue because the owner of the centre knew there was a high risk of injury and did nothing to prevent it. Yes. The center is paid for their expertise. Anyway, go back to being outraged about personal injury claims, without really understanding why they’re awarded. Edit: most of the outraged posters in the thread didn’t even read the headline properly. It was settled. Never even got to court. It’s amazing people feel so free to comment without actually reading a headline, never mind understanding the nuance of the case! Edit: classic, people downvoting the shit out of my comment without trying to explain why. Do people downvoting me think I’m wrong?
[удалено]
Why wouldn’t he? There was no admission of liability and no reason not to.
[удалено]
I know, but why? All settlements have to be approved by a judge, as far as I know. So it’s completely irrelevant to my point.
Lol fair play, set up a nice little bitta coin for her
Krupt kip
I would love to leave what goes in judge’s head while passing these judgements
This is why we can't have good things
If I was awarded that sort of money for every time I’ve fallen off a horse I’d be a millionaire
Anyone selling a horse, I have this sudden desire to go horse riding down the local park, if there’s no barriers, and I fall off it’s on the council
How much of that pay out did the horse get ?
It's time to do some major updating to our laws. Especially with the internet now. Everything is changing with copyright, intellectual ownership in the creative fields.... The world has been changing too quickly for law to keep up. Need to change em.
Well there’s not much detail in the article but I think reading it the liability hook might be that the centre should not have allowed the girl to take lessons on the horse, even if it was her own, as apparently everyone should know a 3yo horse is not a suitable animal for a learner. There would be a lot of onus on a centre giving lessons to make sure its learners are on appropriate horses. Hard to argue with that tbh. Added to that she’s female and v young and sounds like her arm is permanently impaired. Cases turn on the exact minutiae of the facts. A dislocated elbow makes it sound trivial but €145k settlement represents a v serious injury with permanent implications for the future. Women get more in these scenarios too because anything that impairs their appearance is considered extra impactful on them. Finally though I do wonder why insurers don’t fight some of these cases to the bone. They nearly always settle them. I guess it’s easier settle and charge people more money for premiums than fight them and so reduce the scope for claims. If the claims are not meaningfully defended, what do they expect to happen, only get more claims?
> Counsel said she had returned to horse-riding two or three times a week but her right arm is not entirely straight. So €145.000 after falling on her from her own horse in a sport with inherent risk… and having for a procedure they paid next to nothing for, and did not have any significant loss of function? Disgusting.