A horse riding accident

The Claimant ‘E’, aged 35 at the time of the accident, was injured after falling from a horse. E had attended 40-50 riding lessons over a 2 year period but was a still novice rider with little riding confidence. E had never been taught how to gallop.

E and her friend had booked on to a hack; there was no mention of galloping on this hack. This was the third hack that E had been on. E was given a horse to ride that she had never ridden before, and it was a horse was known for being temperamental and forward going. The horse was usually ridden by more experienced riders. E was asked to ride towards the back of the ride which made the horse uneasy and keen to get up to the front with the others. On approach to a small bridle path, the horses in front began to get excited and started to canter. E’s horse followed suit and started to canter then gallop. E was unable to control the horse, lost her balance, was thrown from the horse, and landed on her head.

E was unconscious for several minutes after falling and suffered a head injury. E had balance issues and vertigo which made walking in a straight line almost impossible at first and later was a challenge. E also suffered with sickness, speech problems, blurred vision, tinnitus, concentration problems, anxiety, mental fatigue, headaches etc.

E brought a negligence claim against the Defendant riding school for a number of failings including failing to allocate adequately asses E’s riding ability and match it to a suitable horse, allowed her to go on a hack that was beyond her experience and ability, failure to carry out a suitable risk assessment namely thereby creating a dangerous situation resulting in a reasonably foreseeable accident occurring. Section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 was also relied on.

The Defendant denied liability on the basis that E had been on previous hacks, was fully aware of the risks involved in horse riding and relied upon the maxim ‘volenti non fit injuria’. They also disputed the horse was acting due to any particular characteristic at the time as far as section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 was concerned. They further alleged that E simply lost her balance.

Following the accident, the Council investigated and made 4 recommendations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

The Claimant had a high-powered job in the family business and pre-accident had responsibility for 30 staff. E was reluctant to return to work because of her injuries but managed a phased return 10 months later, which was after help from a Brain Injury Specialist Occupational Therapist. E previously worked 50 hours but reduced this down to 30 hours in view of her struggles.

The Claimant felt her life was on pause for 2 years following the accident. She felt very isolated as she was resting so much in recovery, couldn’t socialise with friends as she had difficulty following conversations and couldn’t deal with loud, busy situations. E’s life is now much more low-key.

The Claimant had sought advice from a large specialist personal injury practice in Sheffield before contacting Spencers who assessed her case as to being too risky to accept and lacking in prospects of success. An advice was sought from 2 separate barristers both of whom advised the case lack merit and was unlikely to be successful if litigated to court.

Her solicitors did not agree and thought the case had sufficient merit to succeed. As a result commercial negotiations were entered into and the Defendant’s solicitors eventually made a without prejudice offer of £30,000.00 in May 2015 plus costs. E’s solicitors negotiated an increased figure of £35,000.00 and this settlement was agreed.