# 8 year old boy killed in ranch accident...but I find the parents irritating



## SkyeAngel (Sep 8, 2010)

Triplet celebrating eighth birthday died after falling from horse in front of horrified family on dream holiday | Mail Online

I've posted the link to the story, but to summarize, three 8 year old triplets went on a trail ride on a ranch, during which the lead horse tripped and the guide fell, causing the other horses to bolt. During this time, one of the children fell but was dragged behind the horse by the stirrup. He was kicked in the head and died.

This is a terrible tragedy. I really do feel for the child and his family. 
This is what I would call a freak accident, and shows the risks we take when we ride. I don't think this could have been predicted. 

As terrible as I feel for the family, their attitude towards the whole thing afterwards has been a little irritating to me. They want to sue the ranch for negligence. First off saying the saddle was loose, then saying his helmet wasn't properly fitted. I don't know if this was the case. I doubt the ranch would run that risk, but you never know. The mother does state that she knows nothing about horses, so I feel maybe her opinion may not be correct. 

I find it odd that she complains that the ranch did not teach the children how to ride properly. Surely if she wanted them to learn, she should have gone to a school and got her children lessons instead of sending them on a trail experience when they have never been on a horse. 

She also has this idea that children should be taught up to a standard high enough to get a 'license' to ride, much like driving. I can't see this idea working.

What really gets me though, is a statement she made to a journalist that was printed in the newspaper version of the story:



> I didn't know that a horse given to children could bolt. If I had known I wouldn't have let him go.


That statement bugs me. I know she is non-horsey, but even the least horsey people I know are aware that a horse has a mind of it's own and instincts that cannot be overridden. Did she think that childens ponies are physically incabable of bolting? Oyy. Surely she would have had to sign a form that stated that she knew the risks and what not. I know that anytime I ride at a ranch like that I have to. 

What with possible negligence of the ranch and serious ignorance on the part of the parents, it makes me sad that the kid got caught up in all this. Poor boy. May he rest in peace.


----------



## sandy2u1 (May 7, 2008)

That kind of thing is really a sad and tragic accident. 

The thing is, the place where they were riding sells rides to people that just have a desire to go riding without wanting to put in the work that it would take to do real riding. In most cases, they make sure those horses have seen and done it all. Horses do have a mind of their own and none of them are bomb proof as we all know. 

I'm also certain that the mother knows that her child had no riding experience and I will bet that she was right there when they put her kid up on the horse. There is usually no training involved. 

I don't feel that she has a leg to stand on legally, unless there is something we are missing. I do sympathize with both her and the riding facility. What a terrible thing to happen.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

I read that article yesterday and I too was annoyed by it. Lots of little things. 

For example, the helmet did not fit right and it is the places fault even though she admits that she picked the helmet herself and they went with that one because it was the third helmet he had tried on (implying it was too much effort to keep trying them until she found one that actually fit).

If she did not feel she knew what she was doing picking a helmet for her son then she should have told the people in charge just that. 



> 'The more I find out the more scared I am for children in this country. We live in a horsey area and everybody I have spoken to knows about incidents of children on horses who have had very serious accidents. It's more dangerous than motorcycling.'​




This made me want to bash my own head on something. Of course everyone knows about incidences where kids have been hurt. Right now a ton more people know about this particular incidence. That does not mean there are a boat load of kids getting maimed by horses. It means that kids getting hurt makes the news and people hear about it.


I am truly sorry for their tragic loss. I just do not see it as a reason to sue.
​


----------



## mbender (Jul 22, 2009)

I don't know anything about this but I do know that if you are going to take your children on a trail ride (of all things) you are running a risk of injury. 

Whether you are horse people or not you make a choice of the possibilities of something happening. This is why I say no horse is bomb proof. Crap happens and it really is a tragic accident. 

There is so much left out that to formulate a decision of suing is hard to say. Was there negligence? Don't know. The child obviously was caught up in the stirrup unfortunately. Did the helmet fall off? Even so, this is a common way of people dying horseback riding. Its just too bad. 

Someone always wants to blame someone else for negligence. Its a freak accident. I'm sure no matter if there was a waiver signed or not all parties involved are suffering from the loss of a child. I guess we will have to see how this plays out and I hope the parents will heal from their loss. Very very sad.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Actually, folks, I do see her point (to the point). If they know nothing about the horses and riding then yes, helmet fit MUST be checked by ranch worker. With that being said I think its unlikely he died because of the helmet fit. 

Years back I was a trail guide (volunteer) for about a year. I had a situation once when 10 years old (beginner) girl fell off the horse, because some POS helping with saddling and mounting people on horses was too lazy to check/tight the girth. and the saddle slipped on the side. That was right next to the steep hill. Thank God it was just on walk and that she felt on side opposite from that hill (or she'd roll 20 feet down to the creek). So yes, sometime accidents happen just because someone doesn't do the job right (not saying this is the case in this particular situation but then who knows!).


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

kitten_Val said:


> Actually, folks, I do see her point (to the point). If they know nothing about the horses and riding then yes, helmet fit MUST be checked by ranch worker. With that being said I think its unlikely he died because of the helmet fit.


I would agree with this except.....

I can not see a ranch worker going along and testing the helmet of each person. 
Ranch workers have no way of knowing which parent is an idiot and which is truly a greeny. 
Add that most 8 year olds have been wearing a helmet for all their other activities for many years. I would think it is fair to assume that ranch workers think that if a mother is off trying on various helmets for her kid that she will not stop until she finds one that fits and if she truly does not know what she is doing she will ask for help.

Is this an equine limited liability state? If it is, I would bet this business had signs posted so saying that she does not know horses are dangerous does not work.


----------



## LetAGrlShowU (Mar 25, 2009)

She is not sueing for money, only for negligence. I have to admit that I see both sides. The ranch works are responsible for checking helmets, girths, and at minimum show the kids how to steer, stop, and go.
On the other hand, if i was uneasy about the helmet not fitting, id be the first one to speak up and ask them to take a look at the fit. Being "non horsey" doesnt not make a good excuse to not ensure you're kid is safe. My first time riding a horse was on a trail experience being ponied in the Georgia mountains. 

This is just a freak accident, but with equine laws as they are, assuming the parents signed waivers acknowledging the risks, they should have no legal rights.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

Saying you are not suing for money does not mean you are not suing for a settlement of damages. It means you are trying to make it sound like you are not money hungry.


----------



## ilovemyPhillip (Apr 4, 2009)

Well, this is in the UK, I think. Not saying it makes a difference... There have been two accidents in my area that two children, and one horse died.

One in Stafford (like, 15/20 minutes away from me) : Girl was riding her horse in a field. The horse got spooked, bolted into the road. A car hit them. Horse was DOA, girl died in the hospital my mom works at.

One in Spotsylvania (where I am currently) : Little 12 y/o boy riding his horse. Something happened and the horse started flipping out. The little boy's foot got caught in the stirrup.. Horse reared up and fell on top of him. He died. The boy's parents were a friend of my dad's.

It freaks my parents out when I ride, they get worried.. But they know it's what I love. So I'm still allowed to do it.

I know the risks, and n00bs should be informed.. ie signing a waiver stating the risks. "Horses are unpredictable." End of story.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

LetAGrlShowU said:


> This is just a freak accident, but with equine laws as they are, assuming the parents signed waivers acknowledging the risks, they should have no legal rights.


This is very state dependent. Not all states have equine limited liability laws. Some states the horse owner can very much be at fault, even with a signed waiver.
That is why I asked if this was a state with an equine limited liability law. I guess I shall go google and find out.



ilovemyPhillip said:


> Well, this is in the UK, I think. Not saying it makes a difference...


The family is from the UK, the accident did not happen there. The accident happened in Missouri.


ETA - it appears Missouri does have a limited liability law.
Linky


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Alwaysbehind said:


> I can not see a ranch worker going along and testing the helmet of each person.


If it's a _*business *_they are making money on (renting horses/trail riding), it's part of a job. If not ranch worker, than trail guide, or owner of the place. Whoever. They didn't ride for free, they paid for the service. Safety on it's best is part of the service.


----------



## tassinari (Jul 15, 2011)

Here is my thought. The parents are living every parents nightmare. Their son died. On a vacation they chose, doing an activity they allowed. They ultimately feel responsible. NO good parent would not feel responsible. And they are so hurt, angry, grieving, ect they are looking to strike out. And the ranch is getting it. If they get the law to agree maybe they arent so responsible. Grief that big doesnt make sense, it is just massive pain. What does an animal do in pain? Strike out. Those comments just sound ignorant to horsey people. But at this moment this to them makes them feel like something is being done or someone is going to pay for this death.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I don't think most limited liability laws exempt you from negligence.

" As the language quoted above reveals, however, the bar to liability articulated in section 3 of the EALA is subject to the provisions of "section 5" (Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1665). Section 5 provides (in pertinent part) as follows:  Section 3 does not prevent or limit the liability of an equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or another person if the equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or other person does any of the following: 
(d) Commits a negligent act or omission that constitutes a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage."

http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cases/mounted/gardner.html

" Plaintiff Taylor was seriously injured when he attempted to mount a horse owned by the defendant. The horse was green broke, but plaintiff testified that defendant told him the horse was a good, rideable horse. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, but in this opinion the Court of Appeals disagrees with that decision. The equine activity statute did not protect the defendant since the testimony established a factual issue whether the defendant made a proper effort to match horse with rider and the plaintiff could not be said to have assumed the risk of the accident if he was not give accurate information about the horse."

New Page 1

Arizona's law states:

"A. An equine owner or an agent of an equine owner who regardless of consideration allows another person to take control of an equine is not liable for an injury to or the death of the person if:

1. The person has taken control of the equine from the owner or agent when the injury or death occurs.

2. The person or the parent or legal guardian of the person if the person is under eighteen years of age has signed a release before taking control of the equine.

3. The owner or agent has properly installed suitable tack or equipment or the person has personally tacked the equine with tack the person owned, leased or borrowed. If the person has personally tacked the equine, the person assumes full responsibility for the suitability, installation and condition of the tack.

4. The owner or agent assigns the person to a suitable equine based on a reasonable interpretation of the person's representation of his skills, health and experience with and knowledge of equines.

B. Subsection A does not apply to an equine owner or agent of the equine owner who is grossly negligent or commits wilful, wanton or intentional acts or omissions.

C. An owner, lessor or agent of any riding stable, rodeo ground, training or boarding stable or other private property that is used by a rider or handler of an equine with or without the owner's permission is not liable for injury to or death of the equine or the rider or handler.

D. Subsection C does not apply to an owner, lessor or agent of any riding stable, rodeo ground, training or boarding stable or other private property that is used by a rider or handler of an equine if either of the following applies:

1. The owner, lessor or agent knows or should know that a hazardous condition exists and the owner, lessor or agent fails to disclose the hazardous condition to a rider or handler of an equine.

2. The owner, lessor or agent is grossly negligent or commits wilful, wanton or intentional acts or omissions.

E. As used in this section:

1. "Equine" means a horse, pony, mule, donkey or ***.

2. "Release" means a document that a person signs before taking control of an equine from the owner or owner's agent and that acknowledges that the person is aware of the inherent risks associated with equine activities, is willing and able to accept full responsibility for his own safety and welfare and releases the equine owner or agent from liability unless the equine owner or agent is grossly negligent or commits wilful, wanton or intentional acts or omissions."


Arizona Equine Activity Liability Statute


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

tassinari said:


> Here is my thought. The parents are living every parents nightmare. Their son died. On a vacation they chose, doing an activity they allowed. They ultimately feel responsible. NO good parent would not feel responsible. And they are so hurt, angry, grieving, ect they are looking to strike out. And the ranch is getting it. If they get the law to agree maybe they arent so responsible. Grief that big doesnt make sense, it is just massive pain. What does an animal do in pain? Strike out. Those comments just sound ignorant to horsey people. But at this moment this to them makes them feel like something is being done or someone is going to pay for this death.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is fine, but it is also the reason that in many places there are no places that offer trail rides in the park anymore. 
People wanting to blame others for tragic events have sued us out of many fun pastimes.


----------



## tassinari (Jul 15, 2011)

Well, I did not say it was right! Just that they arent thinking logically.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wetrain17 (May 25, 2011)

tassinari said:


> Well, I did not say it was right! Just that they arent thinking logically.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
Of course they are not thinking logically. Their son died and they want someone to blame. I would not be surprised if they start to say that horse is a danager to society and should be put down. 

I'm all for supporting these businesses. Its one of the first things I look for when on vacation. And I've been on a handful of guided trail rides but I can honestly say that not much is said about the unpredictability of horses. I sign a waiver that does have a death clause in it and show proof of medical insurance. But I've never been explained that horses can react to the smallest of things at any time. 

They do ask if you have experience with horses, and of course i do, so it may be assumed that I already know this; however, i've never heard it explained to non horsey people.


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

I also think they don't have much of a case, but in the wider picture... Why are we still making stirrups/saddles that don't have some kind of release mechanism?? There's no reason for anybody to dragged, ever.


----------



## Beauseant (Oct 22, 2010)

Ummm.... I can indeed see the mothers side of this...


Here is why: the first time my son, 13 at the time, was EVER on a horse was for a trail ride. I had never even touched a horse before, neither had he. The ride went by without issues, and my son was hooked. He loved riding, and he loved horses....he wanted to trail ride all the time. Well, as a mother who loves her son and put his safety above all...I signed him up for english riding lessons at a local barn. 

Sure I was totally horse stupid, but I DID know that horses are unpredictable and can bolt, buck, etc.....

If my son was to continue in his horse obsession, he would do it safely. And that meant lessons.

Well, imagine my surprise when his riding instructor demanded all her students wear boots/shoes with a 3 inch heel. No lessons would ever be given in sneakers, she said. i asked why....and was horrified at what I heard. The risk of wearing sneakers when riding is great....your foot is more likely to go through the stirrup and you can be drug....

*and yet the 2 trail riding facilities in my area do not specify the 3 inch heel rule, nor do they inform the riders of the dangers of wearing sneakers.*

This child was likely wearing sneakers.

And he should not have been allowed to ride without the proper footwear.

As for helmets, they should be checked by someone at the facility who knows HOW to check for a proper fit.

Most moms, like I was when my son started riding, do NOT KNOW how to check for a proper fit.


Also, the trails we ride on are on government land, no trotting or cantering are permitted...yet one trail place had my son and daughter cantering through the woods despite the law stating it was not permitted, and despite the fact that my adult daughter had never cantered before in her life NOR had she taken any lessons, english or western. My son HAD cantered before, but not through the woods and NOT on a Tennessee Walker.....he'd never ridden a gaited horse before.....he said there is a big difference.

what a total disregard for my adult children's safety~~~ Boy was I mad!!!

My point: these trail places oftentimes flaunt safety with a disgustingly blatant disregard...almost as if they don't care who they kill.....

i've seen it

I've lived it.

So I understand this mother's anger. 

It's not up to her to know how to properly fit a helmet, she trusts the wranglers to do it.

It's not up to her to know that letting her son ride in sneakers is a deadly mistake, it is up to the wranglers to tell her.

Alot of these trail riding facility patrons have never been on a horse before. The owners of these facilities are allowing these people pay to risk their lives.

One sad memory comes to mind: Once I had just had a nice little trail ride on a little lovely morgan mare...she was green, not having been used for trail riding before, and a bit onery...but still a lovely little mare. After my ride was over, they put a young teenage girl on her. This girl had never ridden before and within minutes the mare had figured that out, and all the misbehaviours she had tried with me at the start of our ride, came back...this poor kid was frantic. Her parents were busy mounting their own horses, and the trail ride owner would turn her head and tell this kid "pull the reins to the right" or 'tell her whoa"....this kid was clearly out of her comfort zone. I was standing there watching her, and she turned to me in a terrified voice and said "she won't listen to me". I talked to her to calm her down, tried to give encouraging advice...all the while looking at her sneakers, getting angrier with the trail people by the moment... Her heels were up and the horse was jittery. I showed her how to position her heels...down....told her to try to remember to keep her heels down...she asked why.... I was struck into silence...couldn't tell her why...i just said, well, that's how everybody rides. stupid reply.

Anyhow, I hope she got that fiesty morgan to behave and that she had a nice ride....

I would not have put a young girl with no riding experience on a green horse who had never trail rode before....but they did.

And everyone in this girl's family was wearing sneakers.

That is one of my pet peeves. can u tell?

Sure, a 3 inch heel doesn't guarantee your foot won't go through the stirrup...but it ups your chances of having that NOT happen

So, I am with the mom on this one. The mother should not be expected to be a helmet fitter, nor should she be expected to know that 3 inch heels on her son's footwear could make a difference, nor should she be expected to know to tell her son "heels down".....


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

THREE INCH HEELS????????????????????

Dang! I'd look like a male transvestite hooker wearing 3" heels. Make that an overweight, sweaty male transvestite hooker...:shock: 

In fact, I've never SEEN cowboy boots with a 3" heel!

Mine? 1 5/8":










Oh...and given the safety paranoia of modern America, I don't believe there is a mother in the USA who can't figure out if a helmet fits or not. In most states, it is required just to ride a bicycle!


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

I've got the Missouri warning poster memorized, having read it SO many times....

*WARNING Under Missouri law, an equine professional is not liable for the injury to or death of a participant in equine activities resulting from the inherent risks of equine activies pursuant to the revised statutes of Missouri....*

I don't know how protective that is, or how well it would hold up in court, but barring a case of gross negligence on the part of the staff, well...signs _were_ posted, and it's a tragic accident.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

bubba13, you might want to know what the law actually says:

(Missouri Equine Activity Liability Statute)

"2. Except as provided in subsection 4 of this section, an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional or any other person or corporation shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities and, except as provided in subsection 4 of this section, no participant or a participant's representative shall make any claim against, maintain an action against, or recover from an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person from injury, loss, damage or death of the participant resulting from any of the inherent risks of equine activities... 

4. The provisions of subsection 2 of this section shall not prevent or limit the liability of an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional or any other person if the equine activity sponsor, equine professional or person:

(1) Provided the equipment or tack and knew or should have known that the equipment or tack was faulty and such equipment or tack was faulty to the extent that it did cause the injury; or

(2) Provided the equine and failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity and determine the ability of the participant to safely manage the particular equine based on the participant's age, obvious physical condition or the participant's representations of his ability;

(3) Owns, leases, rents or otherwise is in lawful possession and control of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a dangerous latent condition which was known to the equine activity sponsor, equine professional or person and for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted;

(4) Commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant and that act or omission caused the injury;

(5) Intentionally injures the participant;

(6) *Fails to use that degree of care that an ordinarily careful and prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances*."

That is a loophole that any lawyer could drive a herd of cattle through...


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

We're actually trying to convince our BO to have a boot/heel rule for trail rides. We've even offered to go to local thrift stores and buy pairs of boots for him to have on-hand in case someone doesn't wear the correct footwear. I have seen probably six or eight riders in the last week (mind you, I have only been out to the stable TWICE in the last week) that have had flat-soled sneakers on, like Vans.

I volunteered at a Girls' Scout horse camp last fall and we had racks of boots for the girls who either didn't have shoes/boots with a heel or their heel wasn't big enough.

I really wish our BO would let me and my friend help out with getting trail rides set up to go out. The BO and the wrangler can match people to horses, fine, but let us instruct them and help them get outfitted properly. We got it down to a science at the horse camp. We could instruct the girls (ranging in age from 6 to 13 or 14) how to stop, go, turn and the reason to keep their heels down in less than five minutes, and we were dealing with groups of 6-10, usually.

Anyway, I feel sorry for this family and it is a tragedy. But, I've seen tragedies happen on horses where all the safety precautions were taken and all equipment fit properly and was used properly.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

bsms, I only have hazy details of one case, but it happened at a place I know. As I recall, a locally famous entertainer came to try a horse to buy at a boarding/training/trading facility. I don't know exactly what transpired, but the end result was that the guy fell off and broke his leg. He was trying to sue, and the facility owner had a lawyer draft a letter basically saying that the warning signs were posted and clearly visible, as required by law, and the guy should have known better. He (or his attorney) backed down, and that was the end. 

Now obviously things can go very differently, but I don't know how likely you are to actually win a case like that. This is a fairly horsey region, and I don't know how easy it would be to sway a judge regarding "sensible" "prudent" behavior, if the judge has any horse/farm knowledge at all.


----------



## AlexS (Aug 9, 2010)

As a Brit, I was shocked to find out ranch practices for first time riders. I could not believe that the customers were just thrown on a horse without anyone walking with them (on the ground) leading the horse. I actually had planned to go on one of these types of rides with my husband (never ridden), until I heard that this was the norm, there is no way I would risk his safety like that.


----------



## pintohorse10 (Jul 24, 2011)

When parents loose a child, they feel like they HAVE to blame someone, even if it was no ones falt (Like in this case) She just needs some time to face reality that her Son is dead, and his death wasnt caused by anything other than a accident. 

Though, i do think its wrong of her to be blaming the farm, this was only a accident. I am very sorry for the familes loss


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

Beauseant said:


> *and yet the 2 trail riding facilities in my area do not specify the 3 inch heel rule, nor do they inform the riders of the dangers of wearing sneakers.*


I highly doubt any place has ever told you that your kid has to have a 3" high heel to ride. 

This is a 3" heel:











Yes, a hard soled shoe with a heel should be required for riding. 

The problem is, a huge percentage of the people in every day society do not have shoes that fit this category.


----------



## Lonestar22 (May 22, 2009)

That's a cute shoe. I want em!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

bubba13 said:


> ...This is a fairly horsey region, and I don't know how easy it would be to sway a judge regarding "sensible" "prudent" behavior, if the judge has any horse/farm knowledge at all.


I live near enough to a city to assume the jury wouldn't recognize one end of the horse from the other. However, in the OP case, IF they allowed the rider to wear sneakers, or a helmet that didn't fit, then they really didn't "*use that degree of care that an ordinarily careful and prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances*".

My only point is that I hear and read people who seem to think equine liability laws are iron-clad, but all the ones I've read so far are not. At a minimum, allowing someone to ride without insisting on the same safety gear you would use yourself probably cancels out the horse liability laws of most states.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

I find this all so strange. Maybe it's because we get SO many people who want to play cowboy coming out her to ride as part of the 'Montana-experience'. At every place I have seen here, if you don't ride in proper footwear, you don't ride. Waivers are signed and most the horses I've seen have been ideal trail horses who just follow the leader and let the rider think they're the greatest horseman alive. 

I find it very strange any place would allow riders in sneakers.


----------



## gigem88 (May 10, 2011)

Sounds like the parents don't want to put the blame (if you can call it that or lack of a better word) on themselves. It's easier to blame someone else so they don't have to think they are the ones at fault for their child getting killed. No one is to blame, accidents happen even when ALL precautions have been taken. I hope they can start down the road of healing, my prayers will be with them.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

AlexS said:


> As a Brit, I was shocked to find out ranch practices for first time riders. I could not believe that the customers were just thrown on a horse without anyone walking with them (on the ground) leading the horse.


True. And I want to add on top of it that some "trail riding barns" don't even follow "basic horsemanship 101". 

I took a friend (never been on horse, so my mares were NOT a safe mount) to the barn in area. They put people on horses and TIE them by the fence next to each other. Leaving no control and no hope to get off accident would happen (like one horse would decide to kick on another, or bee stun, or whatever else). I was appalled... I don't think I'll ever go to such a place again. 

bubba, we don't know the details. It can be just a freak accident. It can be a negligence of the ranch worker(s). Neither of us was there to be able to judge. Yes, equine activities ARE high risk, but I still stand my point that the business should take the best precautions possible.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

bsms said:


> I live near enough to a city to assume the jury wouldn't recognize one end of the horse from the other. However, in the OP case, IF they allowed the rider to wear sneakers, or a helmet that didn't fit, then they really didn't "*use that degree of care that an ordinarily careful and prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances*".
> 
> My only point is that I hear and read people who seem to think equine liability laws are iron-clad, but all the ones I've read so far are not. At a minimum, allowing someone to ride without insisting on the same safety gear you would use yourself probably cancels out the horse liability laws of most states.


As to the first paragraph, that is a value judgment - your value judgment. The law/statement is vague and depends upon the interpretation of a judge or jury...as with many laws. You cannot accurately state allowing a rider to ride with sneakers and/or an ill fitted helmet is negligence, when one jury or judge might swing one way and another jury and judge the other.

You are quite right in saying liability laws are not ironclad, however. Negligence, when that is the decision, will inevitably override a general liability law.

As far as this particular case, who knows? I doubt there is a law specifying a helmet fit in just a certain way. "Fit" is a subjective opinion...there is no red light that goes off on top of a helmet verifying a helmet is an exactly correct fit. Peoples heads are shaped and sized differently, and it is highly likely that 90% or more of helmets don't fit exactly right. As to the sneakers, again, who knows what a jury might decide. Is it prudent to wear sneakers riding? No, but I do sometimes, and so do many others. Not being prudent doesn't necessarily demonstrate negligence - despite what the law may say. It becomes a matter of degree, and a value judgment, and one jury may arrive at a different conclusion than another. Where do you draw the line - if sneakers are out, what heel size is satisfactory to be prudent? 1/2"? 1"? 2"? 3"? There will never be a law specifying a person's exact dress...it could become rather ridiculous. One could make a case that various types of clothing, jewelry, toiletries, eyeglasses, and any host of things might not be prudent, but that doesn't necessarily mean allowing them would be negligent on the part of an owner/stable.

Heck, in this litigious society, people can sue for just about anything. Liability issues have sadly infringed upon our quality of life, and are sadly preventing us from enjoying life to its fullest.

Personally, I am an old fashioned guy. I believe people should take responsibility for their own actions and not consistently place the blame for their own actions on others. To me, that is a mark of irresponsibility, poor character, and just another symptom of our disgustingly entitlement minded society...


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

Faceman said:


> Personally, I am an old fashioned guy. I believe people should take responsibility for their own actions and not consistently place the blame for their own actions on others. To me, that is a mark of irresponsibility, poor character, and just another symptom of our disgustingly entitlement minded society...


Hallelujah!!!!!
An old fashioned gal that totally agrees.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Folks, while I do agree that helmet fit is very subjective (unless the helmet is obviously loose so it just hangs all over the head, and they could ask the worker for advice). But at least the article is saying "An inquest was told today that the horses spooked and _*Ted's saddle became dislodged*_." So from my understanding it was a saddle that caused him to slip (and everything else was a freak accident). Saddle doesn't slip "just because". And if it does the renting stable owners should be aware of that (as they have those trail rides probably every day). If that's the case it's not something the kid or his parents are responsible for. Equipment/tack is something ranch is responsible for.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I'm 53, and I wouldn't want to bet everything I've earned in my life on convincing a jury that sneakers are prudent footwear for riding - particularly when I know darn well they are not.

I don't know the particulars of this case. However, if the wranglers are wearing boots, and their novice riders are not, then it would be an uphill battle to argue that allowing sneakers means that you are "...*us[ing] that degree of care that an ordinarily careful and prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances"

*I have argued against laws requiring helmets, and explained that I do not always wear one, but anyone riding on my horses and on my property will wear them. Why? Again, I wouldn't want to stand in front of a court and explain why not wearing a helmet is prudent ("wise or judicious in practical affairs; sagacious").

I regularly argue for allowing riders to assume risk, but they have to KNOW something about the subject to do so. If they do not, then I'm assuming risk for them . If the wranglers aren't willing to assume the risk of wearing sneakers, then they should apply the same standard to their riders.

BTW - on the only trail ride I've been on, helmets and boots were mandatory, and the release form clearly stated that any rider on any horse on any given day could be killed or maimed.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Let's take this out of the horse world for a moment.

If you go to an amusement park and want to ride a roller coaster, do you inspect the roller coaster first, and check on the safety standards and training of all the employees? Of course not. You assume the owner has done that, and his operation of the roller coaster for profit means he has taken reasonable precautions. If the roller coaster collapses from earthquake, it is probably your problem. If it collapses from lack of maintenance and lack of normal safety precautions, then it is the park's responsibility. You cannot assume the risk if you have no means of knowing what the risk is, and you have the right on a publicly operated business to believe standard precautions are being taken on your behalf.

I strongly dislike our sue-happy society, but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a businessman to take reasonable precautions for his customer's safety - particularly if he accepts customers who have no knowledge whatsoever about what normal safety precautions are.

I'm not a huge fan of helmets, but I wouldn't consider allowing a brand new rider to get on a horse without one. I'll let my daughter ride without stirrups, but I sure won't allow her to ride wearing running shoes. Wouldn't be prudent...


----------



## VT Trail Trotters (Jul 21, 2011)

"She also has this idea that children should be taught up to a standard high enough to get a 'license' to ride, much like driving. I can't see this idea working." & "I didn't know that a horse given to children could bolt. If I had known I wouldn't have let him go."The more I find out the more scared I am for children in this country. We live in a horsey area and everybody I have spoken to knows about incidents of children on horses who have had very serious accidents. It's more dangerous than motorcycling." A motorcycle is still more dangerous than a horse in most cases. A horse on a trail ride or in the ring will never be going full speed with a begginer. And horses have 4 legs motorclycles have 2 wheels. And one is designed to go fast and the other 80% of there life walks. Yes i have fallen off horse and just missed the fence. It is dangerous, but cars kill and motorcycles kill 4,000 for MC and 115 people die each day in car crashes. And horse back riding only 417 each year from spine injuries. I feel very sorry for loosing a child at only 8 and the ranch people could have check the helmet and girth and such to make sure it was tight. 

​


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

kitten_Val said:


> Folks, while I do agree that helmet fit is very subjective (unless the helmet is obviously loose so it just hangs all over the head, and they could ask the worker for advice). But at least the article is saying "An inquest was told today that the horses spooked and _*Ted's saddle became dislodged*_." So from my understanding it was a saddle that caused him to slip (and everything else was a freak accident). Saddle doesn't slip "just because". And if it does the renting stable owners should be aware of that (as they have those trail rides probably every day). If that's the case it's not something the kid or his parents are responsible for. Equipment/tack is something ranch is responsible for.


1. I am not sure I trust a non-horse person when they say the saddle became dislodged to mean anything close to what us horse people think when we say saddle became dislodged. To a non-horse person a slight slipping to the side would probably be described as dislodged.

2. You have obviously never owned a round wither free horse. No matter how tight you tighten the girth the saddle still slides.....


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

VT Trail Trotters said:


> ... A motorcycle is still more dangerous than a horse in most cases...


"*Horse riding* carries a high participant morbidity and mortality. Whereas a motor-cyclist can expect a serious incident at the rate of 1 per 7000 h, the horse-rider can expect a serious accident once in every 350 h, ie 20 times as dangerous as motor cycling."

Spinal injuries resulting from horse riding accidents

I'm not certain I believe it, unless the injuries caused during jumping are rolled into the statistics. But if you do, then riding horses may be more dangerous, on average, than riding a motorcycle.


----------



## VT Trail Trotters (Jul 21, 2011)

I have seen a lot about the sneakers and they are right they should have had him wear boots or something with a heel. I have been riding in the ring and i ALWAYS wear my riding boots and there have been instances where my foot slides forewords and the heel caught the stirrup.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Alwaysbehind said:


> ...2. You have obviously never owned a round wither free horse. No matter how tight you tighten the girth the saddle still slides.....


Hmmm...probably not a good choice for purchase by a business that caters to beginning riders.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

bsms said:


> Hmmm...probably not a good choice for purchase by a business that caters to beginning riders.


A good chunk of the breeds that are very level headed and beginner proof (as beginner proof as a horse can be) also tend to be round and some what wither free.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Lots of horses for sale. If you are going to cater to absolute beginners, get horses that are calm AND have withers.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

bsms said:


> Let's take this out of the horse world for a moment.
> 
> If you go to an amusement park and want to ride a roller coaster, do you inspect the roller coaster first, and check on the safety standards and training of all the employees? Of course not. You assume the owner has done that, and his operation of the roller coaster for profit means he has taken reasonable precautions. If the roller coaster collapses from earthquake, it is probably your problem. If it collapses from lack of maintenance and lack of normal safety precautions, then it is the park's responsibility. You cannot assume the risk if you have no means of knowing what the risk is, and you have the right on a publicly operated business to believe standard precautions are being taken on your behalf.
> 
> ...


I agree with some of what you say, but disagree with some also...

A prudent businessperson should indeed take reasonable precautions. However that should be a matter of personal conscience and insuring a happy and safe customer that will return. It should not be a matter of liability, although there are of course certain situations that would be exceptions.

When you go on a roller coaster, or let your child go on one, I would hope you realize there is an element of danger - sometimes a lot, sometimes not so much, depending upon the ride. Now if you are willing to accept the risk, then why blame someone else if something goes wrong? Same with horseback riding, same with anything. 

I am not master of the universe, so do not make the rules, but neither do you. In your mind it is not prudent to let a child ride wearing sneakers. Well, in my mind it is not prudent to let a child ride with open stirrups at all - helmet or no helmet. Would it be ethical/moral for me to sue you because my child subscribed to your safety precautions but closed stirrups were not among your precautions? I just use that as an example because, as I pointed out above, we can (and do) get ridiculous with this stuff. If you don't make a child tuck their shirt in, it flutters and spooks a horse, is that grounds for liability? If you let a child ride when it is windy and a branch cracks, falls down and spooks the horse, is that grounds for liability?

The reality is that no stable owner, no manufacturer, no retail store, no amusement ride, no carmaker, no horse breeder, can possibly exercise such prudence as to eliminate the possiblity of every accident that could possibly happen with their product or service...nor should they be expected to. If you eat sushi, you take a risk of getting sick. If you ride a horse or roller coaster, you are taking a risk. In my opinion, YOU are ASSUMING that risk - why should the owner of that business assume the risk that you yourself williingly take?

Once again, of course there are exceptions. Obvious or intentional negligence on the part of a business owner is always subject to liability. But this stupid situation where someone sues McDonalds because they spill hot coffee in their lap is really sick. Again, I just use that as an example, but the courts are constantly full of frivolous lawsuites, and it is a bit disgusting just how many of them are won.

In the case of the sneakers, we will have to agree to disagree. You can bring your witnesses to court, but I can bring in witnesses all day long - well respected, and educated members of the community - that state they ride in sneakers all the time, and have their entire lives without incident. In some jurors' minds that would negate the "what a reasonable and prudent person would do". In other jurors' minds it might not. But that is the thing - it is subjective. You may think it is not prudent to ride in sneakers (I don't either, even though I do it sometimes), but that is not grounds to make the assumption that everyone feels the same way, nor is it grounds to state definitively that that is what a court or jury would find.

Because these kinds of things are subjective, it brings us to the "be careful what you wish for" situation. You may consider it negligent if something doesn't meet your standard, but my standard may be higher than yours and you may find yourself at risk of negligence using my standards...


----------



## Dresden (Jun 24, 2011)

To quickly address the Mcdonalds issue- there actually was negligence on the part of the company. The media warped it to look ridiculous but we studied the actual case in law school. Mcdonalds knew their coffee was being sold too hot but left it as such so people wouldn't complain about it being cold. Also they knew and had studied how their lids did not fit but had ordered a huge amount in bulk and wanted to use them before ordering lids that did fit. The woman in question was very seriously injured by the hot coffee to the point she had multiple surgeries. She also only sued to recover her medical bills but was awarded by a jury of her peers punitive damages. 

To bring the point back unless you have ALL the facts none of us can say whether the stable was negligent or not.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

Yeah, I haven't researched the McDonald's thing extensively, but we also covered it in a Marxist vs. Hayekian politics course, and the reality was nothing like what you read in the paper. It absolutely was gross--and wilfull--negligence on the part of the company.

As for the tennis shoe thing, if the ranch hands were wearing boots, could that not be regarded simply as a fashion statement, rather than a safety measure, in a court of law? I think you could argue that. After all, many Western boots are not "stirrup safe."










Yes, I've owned some like this, and ridden in them, and no, it's not recommended...


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Faceman said:


> ...When you go on a roller coaster, or let your child go on one, I would hope you realize there is an element of danger - sometimes a lot, sometimes not so much, depending upon the ride. Now if you are willing to accept the risk, then why blame someone else if something goes wrong? Same with horseback riding, same with anything....
> 
> ...Because these kinds of things are subjective, it brings us to the "be careful what you wish for" situation. You may consider it negligent if something doesn't meet your standard, but my standard may be higher than yours and you may find yourself at risk of negligence using my standards...


The law doesn't try to measure prudence in each case. It leaves it to a jury and the court.

If a roller coaster collapses due to earthquake, the court is LIKELY to find the owner innocent. If it collapses due to poor maintenance and failure to comply with safety standards, then it is LIKELY the owner will lose.

You can do as YOU think prudent, but you would be prudent to consider what OTHERS will think. If you allow a beginner to do things you would not do yourself, then you will have a hard time defending yourself in court. I'm not saying it is impossible. A very experienced lawyer told me once that the law is whatever a judge and jury say it is on the day your case is decided.

As for boots being a fashion statement, try doing an Internet search - lawyers can. Try "riding boots required for safety" in Google. It will get you this:

Google

You won't have to go far down to find:

"*For safety reasons, Shadybrook Stables requires all riders to have appropriate riding boots and ASTM/ SEI certified riding helmets."

*Required Equipment - Shadybrook Stables- Horseback Riding Lessons in northern Virginia*

*Now, feel free in court to explain WHY you used a different standard. Me? I think it helps a lot to have the truth on your side in a debate. It doesn't make a win certain in court, but it sure would be nice!*
*


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Faceman said:


> ...If you eat sushi, you take a risk of getting sick...


And if the restaurant left the fish out at room temp for a couple of days, the risk goes WAY up for reasons the restaurant knows about and I do not.

No one can protect you from every risk. However, if the trail ride operator has a horse who is a known bolter, or uses saddles in need of repair, or doesn't warn a first time rider about ways to reduce risk, the the operator has a good chance of getting his butt handed to him in court. As he should. 

"EALA terms vary by state, but in most states, EALA makes equine professional not liable for the death or injury of an equestrian participant if such death or injury resulted from a risk inherent to equine activities. An inherent risk would be one that is foreseeable as likely or possible as a result of interacting with a horse or horses. Examples would include being thrown from a horse or being bitten by a horse. A non-inherent risk would be one not usually associated with equine activities. An equine professional may be liable for injury or death resulting from a non-inherent risk. An example of a non-inherent risk may include dogs chasing a horse, which causes injury to the rider.

EALA does not protect equine professionals from all liability. For example, an equine professional may be liable for a participant’s injuries if he or she displayed a willful and wanton or intentional disregard for the participant’s safety or if he or she failed to make a reasonable effort to ensure the participant’s safety. An equine professional may also be liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition that the equine professional knew about, but the participant did not, or if he or she provided defective tack or equipment that caused injury or death to the participant.

EALA encourages equestrian activities by limiting equine professionals’ liability for injury or death to equestrian participants. However, the equine professional is only protected if a participant suffers injury or death due to an inherent risk involved with interacting with horses. EALA does not shield an equine professional from liability if the injury or death was caused by a non-inherent risk or caused by the equine professional’s own negligence."

Equine Activity Liability

Also see:

Detailed Discussed of the Equine Activity Liability Act

For the law in your state, try here:

Map of State Equine Activity Liability Statutes

Anyone who thinks equine liability laws are a magic wand protecting them from all harm could be in for a big shock!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

McDonalds & Hot Coffee:

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is an interesting read, regardless of what side you think is right.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

You are using Wikipedia as a source for facts?


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Dresden said:


> To quickly address the Mcdonalds issue- there actually was negligence on the part of the company. The media warped it to look ridiculous but we studied the actual case in law school. Mcdonalds knew their coffee was being sold too hot but left it as such so people wouldn't complain about it being cold. Also they knew and had studied how their lids did not fit but had ordered a huge amount in bulk and wanted to use them before ordering lids that did fit. The woman in question was very seriously injured by the hot coffee to the point she had multiple surgeries. She also only sued to recover her medical bills but was awarded by a jury of her peers punitive damages.
> 
> To bring the point back unless you have ALL the facts none of us can say whether the stable was negligent or not.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That is your opinion and your value judgment, and because of that your statement of negligence is nothing more than that - your opinion. In my opinin (which of course carries no more weight than yours) is that when you spill something on yourself, it is your fault...what happened to be in the container is not relevant- nor is what the media did or didn't say relevant. Criminy, if I get a paper cut opening an envelope should I sue the envelope manufacturer?

As to your last statement, I agree, none of us know all the facts, although I agree with the provision that negligence is subjective, therefore they might, as with the McDonalds case, be negligent in some people's eyes and not in others. And because negligence is subjective, a jury's decision renders a legal decision, but still does not make the negligence definitive...


----------



## JustDressageIt (Oct 4, 2007)

bsms said:


> Lots of horses for sale. If you are going to cater to absolute beginners, get horses that are calm AND have withers.


I'm sorry, but even with "lots of horses for sale," well-broke, truly beginner-safe horses are still a pretty penny. Would a trail riding barn really turn away a well-behaved horse because it doesn't have prominent withers? Heck no. 
If a person falls to the side and hauls on the saddle, there's a good chance the saddle might slip regardless of withers.
Agreed with AB that it could indeed be an exaggeration - the simple fact is we will never know the truth of that day, just witnesses' memories, which we all know are skewed one way or another.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## equiniphile (Aug 16, 2009)

bsms said:


> Dang! I'd look like a male transvestite hooker wearing 3" heels. Make that an overweight, sweaty male transvestite hooker...:shock:


 :lol: Lol, this cracked me up.

Mine are about that same height, maybe a little taller. I can't imagine trying to ride in 3" heels.

As for the negligence, I'm on the fence on this one. I think it's wrong of her to try to blame the ranch for an accident that was clearly a freak accident, but on the other hand, you don't understand what it's like to lose a child until you've lived it. Of course she's upset. Of course she wants someone to blame. Does that make it right? I don't know.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

Face, did you ever see this in the local news or paper? I tried to find it on the NewsLeader website to no avail. The actual incident was in March or April, I think, but it should still come up with a Google search. Nada. I'm curious what facility this was at...


----------



## Indyhorse (Dec 3, 2009)

kitten_Val said:


> If it's a _*business *_they are making money on (renting horses/trail riding), it's part of a job. If not ranch worker, than trail guide, or owner of the place. Whoever. They didn't ride for free, they paid for the service. Safety on it's best is part of the service.


I am late coming to this thread, but I have to agree with Val here.

I worked for 5 long years as a trail guide at a facility that provided guided trail rides. 

We had VERY specific rules at the property. Every child was required to wear a helmet, no exceptions. We as the guides provided and fitted the helmets. No children under 6, and kids 6-8 were almost always ponyed. This was not something we left up to the parents, nor would we trust their judgement. Each rider, child or adult, was assisted in mounting and given riding basics (stop, go, turn) individually, and asked to demonstrate to us. We then went over the handling basics again before the gates were opened and we proceeded out onto the trails. We had a minimum requirement of one guide per three riders. Larger groups had several guides - a lead guide, tail guide, and often several working from the side, depending on group size. Liability waivers were always signed up front, we as the guides did all the care/grooming/saddling of the horses in the string and checked the saddles before loading up every time. 

But we were paid employees, not volunteers, and we took our jobs and the safety of our customers very seriously. 

So while I do think some of the statements made by the woman are unrealistic, if there is truth to some of the things she is saying then I would think the stable IS negligent to some extent. You can't expect a non-horsey person to be knowledgeable about saddle fit or helmet fit. Even if they say they do - double-check, double check. We constantly got people through our place that proclaimed to be expert riders and were clearly clueless on the back of a horse. It was our job to watch them and keep them safe no matter how much they claimed to know.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Alwaysbehind said:


> 1. I am not sure I trust a non-horse person when they say the saddle became dislodged to mean anything close to what us horse people think when we say saddle became dislodged. To a non-horse person a slight slipping to the side would probably be described as dislodged.
> 
> 2. You have obviously never owned a round wither free horse. No matter how tight you tighten the girth the saddle still slides.....


1. Yes, that's exactly why I said earlier we can't judge the situation without knowing all details.

2. I did in fact. However you do NOT put a beginner (with no balance and knowledge) in saddle, which you know for sure may slip. If they did - well, it's again a negligence.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

bsms said:


> McDonalds & Hot Coffee:
> 
> Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I actually always considered that as a biggest BS ever. Such suits shouldn't be even accepted by courts (and wasting my tax money) IMHO...


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Alwaysbehind said:


> You are using Wikipedia as a source for facts?


It often has them, including links to other documents. No, Wiki is not perfect, but the article on the MacDonald's Hot Coffee lawsuit offers a good review covering both sides.

Oh - and I'm posting on an Internet discussion forum. For a college paper, I'd dig deeper. And if you wish to dig deeper to find the ultimate truth, go ahead. I need to go exercise our gelding...who has tall withers and is fine for a beginner to ride, provided they understand that trotting is his default speed.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

bsms said:


> You can do as YOU think prudent, but you would be prudent to consider what OTHERS will think. If you allow a beginner to do things you would not do yourself, then you will have a hard time defending yourself in court. I'm not saying it is impossible. A very experienced lawyer told me once that the law is whatever a judge and jury say it is on the day your case is decided.


In answer to your question in the first sentence...why? Why are other people's values relevant? A business owner will consider other people's values only up to the point it is profitable to do so...anything beyond that is voluntary. To expect more is an entitlement attitude. A business owner owes you nothing beyond providing a product or service satisfactory enough for you to pay for it, and you are the one that should have responsibility for deciding what is satisfactgory - BEFORE you buy it. To sue for liability after the fact - after you have made your decision to purchase, be it a product or service, is shifting responsibility from your shoulders to someone else.

MY values are kids should ride with closed stirrups - do you practice that with children? If not, then by your definition you are not considering what I consider to be prudent and are at risk of me suing you. We should all try to sell our own values - nothing wrong with that, but we have no right to expect others to meet our own values and hold them responsible if they don't.

This just boils down to a very basic difference in one's philosophy of life. There are those who think the world should take care of them, and then there are those who think they should take care of themselves. I am obviously one of the latter, and am saddened to have seen the country increasingly move to the former. But then that is just my opinion - some people are glad to give up their freedoms, discard the burden of personal responsibility, and be kept by society...


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

kitten_Val said:


> 2. I did in fact. However you do NOT put a beginner (with no balance and knowledge) in saddle, which you know for sure may slip. If they did - well, it's again a negligence.


I will keep that in mind.... Well not really.

The safest horse I have ever owned spent most of his life very wither free. (Now his back sags enough he appears to have them.)

I would trust him with your 90yo grandmother, even with out withers.

He took my novice (third time in the saddle, scared of horses) husband (was boyfriend at the time) on a trail ride, up and down hills. And my husband is not a small man, he weighs over 200lbs, so far more than this child.

When the rider leaned the horse some how righted them. 

So no, it is not negligence to put a beginner on a horse with out enough wither to secure the saddle.


I find it disturbing that so many people want to jump to negligence when reading a news article that everyone knows contains limited facts.


----------



## Dresden (Jun 24, 2011)

Nevermind


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

bubba13 said:


> Face, did you ever see this in the local news or paper? I tried to find it on the NewsLeader website to no avail. The actual incident was in March or April, I think, but it should still come up with a Google search. Nada. I'm curious what facility this was at...


I'm sorry - probably having a senior moment - did I see what in the paper? If you are referring to the incident that's the topic of the thread, no I never saw it in our paper, but I only read it occasionally online...


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Alwaysbehind said:


> I will keep that in mind.... Well not really.
> 
> The safest horse I have ever owned spent most of his life very wither free. (Now his back sags enough he appears to have them.)
> 
> ...


You know I havn't seen _*bombproof *_horse (if there is a such thing) yet to bolt _*just because *_the horse on front stepped wrong and went down. Also yes, while saddle is not extremely secure on no-withers horse there are such things as breastplate, special pads, etc, that do help with the problem (needless to say that kid was very light). 

I don't see how disturbing it is to discuss something and give an opinion on public forum (even if it's different from someone's else). Everyone here is saying "if" when discussing it. We don't know details, we are guessing. So why not? Yes, if it'd be MY child (knock on wood), I'd really try to study all possible reasons for what happened (and believe me if it's my own fault to get problems on my butt I never have a problem to admit it and say "yes, I was an idiot"). And yes, I did come across bad (simply dangerous) practice (when people fell, got kicked by horses, beginners got bucking horse, etc. etc.) in trail riding barns, which IMHO = negligence. If it's a case here? I don't know. I truly hope not, because otherwise it puts other customers in danger.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

Faceman said:


> I'm sorry - probably having a senior moment - did I see what in the paper? If you are referring to the incident that's the topic of the thread, no I never saw it in our paper, but I only read it occasionally online...


Yeah, the actual incident. You'd think it would have made the news. I didn't hear about it when it happened, and Googling now the only references I can find are in UK papers.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

bubba13 said:


> Yeah, the actual incident. You'd think it would have made the news. I didn't hear about it when it happened, and Googling now the only references I can find are in UK papers.


Yeah, it's a shame, but I don't expect much more from a Gannett owned newspaper. If AP doesn't pick it up, you don't see it, and AP evidently never picked up the story. Sad, because whether you are a "fer or agin'", these kinds of things affect us all, as well as pointing out horse riding safety issues. Now if it had been a pit bull biting someone it would have made headlines everywhere...:?


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

Or vampires. :shock:

Gah, I don't think you were living here, four years ago, when vampires made the front page of the NewLeader. And this was before vampires were even _cool_, man. Funniest shiznit ever. Some girl I went to high school with (and later college, until she dropped/flunked out...twice) apparently got suckered into some "secret underground vampire cult" in, like, the drainage ditches below Springfield, or something? They were drinking chicken blood or some crap. Then she ran away from home, bit her stepfather, and cursed the family dog. All because she was a "super-bright child prodigy" aka a super dumb spoiled brat.

THIS is the big news, deserving a multi-page article about what's becoming of our city's youth...

Oh, the other vampires told her they could tell SHE was a vampire due to her eyes and the shape of her ears....being a super-bright child prodigy, she believed them. Naturally.\

EDIT

Actual article that ran in the paper: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20042/vampires-2
*facepalm*


----------



## MacabreMikolaj (May 9, 2009)

Eh, this is such a touchy subject, it's really just like the helmet VS no helmet arguments.

Yes, a certain amount of responsibility has to be expected by the people offering the service, but likewise, I really don't see how you can compare this to a carnival ride in which as long as all maintenance is done properly, the ride is basically guaranteed to operate properly and not be dangerous. A horse is not a ride. It is a living, thinking, breathing animal and there is simply no such thing as bombproof.

Our last boarding stable also had a dude ranch type thing with trail rides. One day, the group came back earlier then expected with a crying child walking with her mom. Why had she fallen off? Because the company employees complete moronic kids who got bored and decided to play "tag", and basically ended up slapping the girls' horse upon which it bolted and smashed her into a tree. In this case, the parents should have sued the shingles right off that barn roof in my opinion. This was a deadbroke animal who had never caused a problem and would have been just fine if some idiot hadn't walloped him across the *** with leather reins. This was complete inexcusable negligence and irresponsibility on the part of the company by permitting 15 and 16 year old children with little horse experience to be trail guides without adult or experienced supervision.

The story posted sounds like a bad case of both sides not taking necessary precautions, or understanding the full extent of the danger. This was a bad set of circumstances and you're essentially only getting one side - every single city slicker I have EVER met will scream "HE'S RUNNING AWAY WITH ME!" when the horse trots off. Did the horse actually bolt? Or did he jump and trot forward in fright? A horse doesn't have to be going fast to kill you when that hoof clips your head. 

It really doesn't sound to me like a whole lot of negligence occurred, and that's based solely on what I guarantee is the "inflated" story of a distraught mother. It was a freak accident, and the parents didn't do their homework, period. If she "never would have let him ride if she knew", that really doesn't speak volumes about her as a parent - if you're THAT concerned about child safety, how on earth do you not research the HECK out of something? Do you let him go white water rafting and then claim you had no idea he could fall out of the boat? Do you let him go sky diving and claim you had no idea the parachute could ever fail? That is just as ridiculous as actually believing an animal isn't capable of doing absolutely anything it wants to.


----------

