# Teenager sues for 3million after fall from ex racer



## Antw23uk (18 October 2016)

Not sure how I feel about this really. Accidents happen and unfortunately some are life changing. The girl who is now paralysed says she shouldnt have been allowed to ride her (now ex) boyfriends mothers horse because it was unsafe. They say she was a competent rider but fell off in walk and they had the approval for her riding the mare from the girls mother!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ehaving-horse-sues-3million-compensation.html

What do you think?


----------



## Theocat (18 October 2016)

Even if the horse behaves as the girl's solicitor describes, that's still just a horse being a horse (albeit a horse on a bad day!) 

I doubt they forced this girl into the saddle, and she owned her own pony, which you could be forgiven for taking of a sign of at least basic experience.

Bad luck for the girl, but she made the decision to get on board - she or her parents should have made sure they had personal accident insurance. I can't see any evidence that the owner of the horse has done anything wrong, on the basis of what's been reported.


----------



## Antw23uk (18 October 2016)

Agreed, I think it was just an unfortunate accident.


----------



## JanetGeorge (18 October 2016)

I have a possible claim outstanding against me (although her solicitors told her she had little or no chance.)"  to quote one of the experts;

" To succeed with a personal injury claim under s.2(2), the victim must satisfy three tests in relation to the accident:

    The likelihood test: was the damage likely?
    The characteristic test: was the horse a dangerous &#8220;problem&#8221; horse or was it a normal horse but, at the time of the accident, behaving in a dangerous way because of the circumstances in which it found itself?
    The knowledge test: were the horse&#8217;s characteristics known to its keeper?

In brief, therefore, s.2(2) makes the keeper of a horse liable where the horse&#8217;s behaviour was predictable. "

See the whole article:  https://www.warners-solicitors.co.uk/article/2015/an-accident-waiting-happen.html


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (18 October 2016)

This sentence:  She was not an experienced equestrian and was just over five feet tall at the time, he said.

Um how big do they think jockeys are?!? Aside from the obvious older, stronger part. Kids start out at racing school on horses that have had no retraining and only know racing. Some of these kids have never seen a horse in the flesh before let alone sat on one. 

I highly doubt this case will be on by the kid who is clearly out for all she can get. Riding is a dangerous sport and she chose to get on - more than once.


----------



## case895 (18 October 2016)

If I were being sued in a case like this, I would quietly sell up and ****** off abroad under the name Miguel Sanchez.


----------



## Dry Rot (19 October 2016)

Is a teenager qualified to know whether she's fit and knowledgeable to ride someone else's horse or not? In the yes of the law, there are a lot of things an 'infant' (someone under 18) cannot do and I wonder if it accepts that a teenager is able to judge whether it was safe to ride a particular horse or not? A parent apparently agreed to her riding, but is that enough? The horse owner also bears some responsibility, but £3M worth? I can see why the judge has gone off to ponder!


----------



## JanetGeorge (19 October 2016)

The  big question is - did the horse owner have insurance?  As in horse insurance, BHS Gold membership.  Or would her household insurance cover her (which it might if the field was attached to the house.)  Insurers would probably try and make this one 'go away' by making an offer.  If no insurance, is there any chance the owner could cough up this sort of money - and legal costs - if the case is 'won' (one rather doubts she would have bought an ex racehorse if she had money to burn!)


----------



## millikins (19 October 2016)

I have sympathy for the girl if the article is correct (always a moot point with DM!). Novice adult buys OTTB, doesn't re school it and allows 14 yr old to ride it in an open space when she appears not to be competent enough to judge the girl's ability. Teenager then hauls on reins to stop when horse goes too fast so horse freaks. If the owner had won the lottery and bought a Porsche, would she have allowed a new driver in it?


----------



## jrp204 (19 October 2016)

millikins said:



			I have sympathy for the girl if the article is correct (always a moot point with DM!). Novice adult buys OTTB, doesn't re school it and allows 14 yr old to ride it in an open space when she appears not to be competent enough to judge the girl's ability. Teenager then hauls on reins to stop when horse goes too fast so horse freaks. If the owner had won the lottery and bought a Porsche, would she have allowed a new driver in it?
		
Click to expand...

Does it say the owner was a 'novice adult' or that it wasn't 'reschooled'? The girl had ridden the horse before and the owner had got the mothers consent.


----------



## millikins (19 October 2016)

'I also had a conversation on the phone with her before and she said it was ok. I didn't know a lot about horses, but I knew how Polly looked and she looked good.
'I believed that Ashleigh had more experience, she had more experience than I did.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sues-3million-compensation.html#ixzz4NXpFpPKK 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## windseywoo (19 October 2016)

Lesson learnt, won't let anyone else ride my horses, then the only person who can get hurt is me and no one else can sue me if they fall off.


----------



## rachk89 (19 October 2016)

Dry Rot said:



			Is a teenager qualified to know whether she's fit and knowledgeable to ride someone else's horse or not? In the yes of the law, there are a lot of things an 'infant' (someone under 18) cannot do and I wonder if it accepts that a teenager is able to judge whether it was safe to ride a particular horse or not? A parent apparently agreed to her riding, but is that enough? The horse owner also bears some responsibility, but £3M worth? I can see why the judge has gone off to ponder!
		
Click to expand...

In the eyes of the law, she is an adult I believe. You can be tried in the court of law from the age of 10 in England (8 in Scotland) even for murder, so yes, she is fit enough to know, she is considered an adult really.

She got on willingly, an accident happened. Its unfortunate, but that's what happens in sport. To sue someone over it is pretty stupid to be honest, I would hope they are unlikely to win.

I'll still let a teenager at the yard ride my horse, but I know he has more brains than that girl. He wouldn't have a go at me if he fell off my horse, he'd brush the dirt off and get back on even if I said not to.

I find it odd that the accident happened in 2012, yet she's only suing now. I know cases can take a while to get to court, but 4 years? Anything to do with perhaps the split up of her and the ex boyfriend?


----------



## be positive (19 October 2016)

rachk89 said:



			In the eyes of the law, she is an adult I believe. You can be tried in the court of law from the age of 10 in England (8 in Scotland) even for murder, so yes, she is fit enough to know, she is considered an adult really.

She got on willingly, an accident happened. Its unfortunate, but that's what happens in sport. To sue someone over it is pretty stupid to be honest, I would hope they are unlikely to win.

I'll still let a teenager at the yard ride my horse, but I know he has more brains than that girl. He wouldn't have a go at me if he fell off my horse, he'd brush the dirt off and get back on even if I said not to.

I find it odd that the accident happened in 2012, yet she's only suing now. I know cases can take a while to get to court, but 4 years? Anything to do with perhaps the split up of her and the ex boyfriend?
		
Click to expand...

I am not in favour of the blame culture and suing people for every minor mishap but this post is not fair on the girl whose life has been changed tragically in one unlucky moment, it is all very well saying if xxxx rides a horse, falls off they will brush off the dirt and get back on but if he had broken his neck in the fall he would be unable to, he would also, if he had half a brain, sue your insurance company to help support him in the future, if they were not offering a sensible payment,  it is not stupid to try and get financial help for life changing injuries that is why we have insurance.

I expect this has been ongoing for years with insurance offers being derogatory, there is point point suing an individual for millions, unless they have millions, as there will be no money to pay out, there is no mention of insurance but I expect they are involved behind the scenes and that it will probably be settled with a far lower payout than asked for.

There will be far more to this than reported in the DM, the main thing is it shows that we need to insure and be extremely careful who we allow to ride our horses, not just for fear of being sued but because a simple fall can lead to serious life changing injuries that we would not wish anyone we are close to to suffer, riding horses is a risk sport, ensuring anyone getting on is capable of riding competently is something we should always consider before letting them ride.


----------



## Natch (19 October 2016)

be positive said:



			I am not in favour of the blame culture and suing people for every minor mishap but this post is not fair on the girl whose life has been changed tragically in one unlucky moment, it is all very well saying if xxxx rides a horse, falls off they will brush off the dirt and get back on but if he had broken his neck in the fall he would be unable to, he would also, if he had half a brain, sue your insurance company to help support him in the future, if they were not offering a sensible payment,  it is not stupid to try and get financial help for life changing injuries that is why we have insurance.
		
Click to expand...


This. She's got life changing injuries, not a few bruises. If you take out all the personal bits, that's exactly why we have insurance. It's easy to see it in light of blame of a dangerous horse or a vendetta against an ex or rising insurance prices but if you put those things to one side, she's going to have costs associated with being paralysed for the rest of her life. It's not unreasonable for her to pursue a payment.


----------



## Theocat (20 October 2016)

Natch said:



			This. She's got life changing injuries, not a few bruises. If you take out all the personal bits, that's exactly why we have insurance. It's easy to see it in light of blame of a dangerous horse or a vendetta against an ex or rising insurance prices but if you put those things to one side, she's going to have costs associated with being paralysed for the rest of her life. It's not unreasonable for her to pursue a payment.
		
Click to expand...

That's true, but who should have been the one to consider the insurance? Should it be the owner of the horse, or should it be the rider who chose to get on board (or in this case her parents)? If the owner is at fault, they should be liable. If the horse was just being a horse, the teenager chose to take a risk normally inherent in the sport, and should have her own cover.


----------



## be positive (20 October 2016)

Theocat said:



			That's true, but who should have been the one to consider the insurance? Should it be the owner of the horse, or should it be the rider who chose to get on board (or in this case her parents)? If the owner is at fault, they should be liable. If the horse was just being a horse, the teenager chose to take a risk normally inherent in the sport, and should have her own cover.
		
Click to expand...

I think most rider policies and certainly ones for young people who are not "protecting" current income or mortgages etc, will be very low payouts, something in the region of £10k for life changing injury, not enough to make a difference,  third party has a far higher ceiling, into the millions, if the injured party can "prove" their case, the payout will allow her to make a life for herself, it is proving negligence that is hard and why these cases end up in court.


----------



## Goldenstar (20 October 2016)

This story illustrates why you must must have third party cover if you have animals .
Do I think on the basis of what was in the story the horse owner is liable ,no I don't I think the rider assumed the risk when she got on the horse.
It will be interesting to see what the outcome is .
I do have accident and critical illness cover life cover a sort of combined policy for myself it cost about 500 a month it would pay about half a million .
So there's no easy answer for this one her claim is for over three million which is probably realistic when you think how long she will live with the disability , to pay for that sort of cover for yourself would be prohibitive .


----------



## criso (20 October 2016)

I think the problem is that payouts from insurance are dependent on blaming someone and showing they were negligent  Sometimes accidents just happen and the person is just as affected and their injuries just as life changing.  

Assuming what's being reported is correct, in this case it must be almost impossible to make a judgement as there are two very different accounts of what happened so it comes down to who do believe.


----------



## Irish gal (20 October 2016)

There's another side to this - all the craze for Racing to Riding horses. The owner claims she is more of a novice than the girl - so who the hell sold her a race horse. It's absolute lunacy in my book. That was an accident waiting to happen. TBs are more fizzy, more sensitive, more reactive and because of those things they are more dangerous for novices. Now you can say I'm generalising and I know I am, but having had a few, even the quietest ones, take them hunting and they react way more than the average cross. Given the right stimulus the blood comes up and a novice just wouldn't handle the situation.

Sadly though, in a sense, they are also really cheap, making them attractive. The person who sold that woman the horse, they have a share of responsibility here, not legally, but definitely morally.


----------



## be positive (20 October 2016)

If you look up the form the mare is hardly an ex racehorse, she had 1 failed attempt in a p2p so may well have been treated as a normal riding horse for most of her life, she probably was cheap, uneducated but being an ex racehorse is not really an excuse in this case, many tb's are totally unsuitable for inexperienced people but unfortunately they are usually inexpensive, so often end up in the wrong hands and when they do overreact everything happens so much faster than it does on the average horse.

Morals don't seem to come into the equation for many people selling a horse, especially at the bottom end of the market sadly.


----------



## RunToEarth (20 October 2016)

Irish gal said:



			There's another side to this - all the craze for Racing to Riding horses. The owner claims she is more of a novice than the girl - so who the hell sold her a race horse. It's absolute lunacy in my book. That was an accident waiting to happen. TBs are more fizzy, more sensitive, more reactive and because of those things they are more dangerous for novices. Now you can say I'm generalising and I know I am, but having had a few, even the quietest ones, take them hunting and they react way more than the average cross. Given the right stimulus the blood comes up and a novice just wouldn't handle the situation.

Sadly though, in a sense, they are also really cheap, making them attractive. The person who sold that woman the horse, they have a share of responsibility here, not legally, but definitely morally.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, you are generalising. I hate this stigma that TBs and in particular "ex racers" get. It had one run as a ptp horse, it was very unlikely to have come from a large yard or have been in training for any length to have demonstrated the traits that are "typical" of institutionalised racers. We have had quite a few straight out of training, comparing those to something 10 years out of racing and five years out of pointing is like comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Irish gal (20 October 2016)

I'm talking about it as it pertains to this case, the stigma TBs face is another matter. Where I'm from at least, point to pointers receive special training on gallops. They are taught to run straight ahead. That is very different from the training a normal riding horse gets. 

I'm not having  a go at TBs. I'm questioning the wisdom of placing one, especially one who has been trained for pointing, in the hands of a novice rider. I think it's a recipe for disaster, and most horse people I know would agree with that.


----------



## RunToEarth (20 October 2016)

We have both pointers and ex pointers and as previously stated, you are comparing apples and oranges. I have (quite happily) put novices on ex pointers and taken them hacking in open spaces and even hunting - a lot of hireling yards have pointers they hire to members of the public they have never met before. 

Pointers are not trained to run straight ahead at all, many never receive "special training" on the gallops - its amateur, you don't need a licence for training PTP in this country, a great deal do it at private yards without facilities. The horse in question hadn't raced under rules, it was entered for one point to point, for all intents and purposes it is no more a racehorse than my Irish bog pony.


----------



## MyBoyChe (20 October 2016)

And tbh, Ive had a worse fall off my highland pony than I did in 3 years of owning a TB ex racer.  Never came off the TB in 3 years of happy hacking, came off the highland, knocked myself out and ended up in A&E.  No idea how it happened, cant remember but suspect he either tripped or spooked, or both together and I plopped off the front and banged my head.  My point is that any time you get on a horse you are likely to come off sooner than planned, its an occupational hazard and as the rider, you have to accept the risk!


----------



## Irish gal (20 October 2016)

RunToEarth said:



			We have both pointers and ex pointers and as previously stated, you are comparing apples and oranges. I have (quite happily) put novices on ex pointers and taken them hacking in open spaces and even hunting - a lot of hireling yards have pointers they hire to members of the public they have never met before. 

Pointers are not trained to run straight ahead at all, many never receive "special training" on the gallops - its amateur, you don't need a licence for training PTP in this country, a great deal do it at private yards without facilities. The horse in question hadn't raced under rules, it was entered for one point to point, for all intents and purposes it is no more a racehorse than my Irish bog pony.
		
Click to expand...

That might be what is done in England but it's not what happens here in Ireland. Hunt hirelings here are not ex pointers they are generally ISH, draught crosses, that type of horse.

Here pointers do a lot of their work on the gallops. Just thinking now of the people close to me who train pointers. Several have a makeshift gallops along the headland of the fields on their farm. But there is also a local trainer, with his own and they use that. Strangely now, I don't see too many show jumpers there, hence the 'special training' for pointers. What they do is they build up the number of laps on the gallops. They're going in one direction or the other and they can't deviate from the track so that's straight ahead in either direction - at least it was the last time I did it.

Whether horses are running under rules or not, it's still a race they're running. Here the idea with pointers is to see whether they are good enough for NH, having proven themselves by winning in point to points. It's a serious business, with a lot of money involved, horses are trained by those with a licence and while they are ridden by amateur jockeys, many are on their way to professional careers. It's not really a sport for amateurs here in the sense that the other disciplines are. They may not be running at a race track but if you were to define them, they are still racers. 

Horses who don't make the grade and won't be going to the track are not sold on to novices, unless by the very unscrupulous, in rare instances. Horses coming out of that training are not seen as suitable for weaker riders - rightly so IMO.


----------



## honetpot (20 October 2016)

I think if you have a severe injury claiming against someone is not personal, its about getting money to live.
 There was a case where two children where injured in a car crash, the car was driven by there mother and their court appointed  legal guardian's( this is not the proper term) had to claim for them against her insurance, they would have to prove negligence. I think if you had rider insurance the insurance company would try and mitigate their loses by claiming against the horse owner, the horse owners  insurance should fight the claim.


----------



## ycbm (20 October 2016)

Did I misread it or has everyone else missed the point that the girl also rode the horse at the pre purchase trial, presumably to check it out for the more novice mother who was buying?

I don't blame her trying. And if it doesn't impact on the mother being refused insurance or having massively jacked up insurance costs in future, I hope she wins a fair amount to help her in future.  Do I think the insurance is liable?  Probably not.


----------



## Goldenstar (21 October 2016)

honetpot said:



			I think if you have a severe injury claiming against someone is not personal, its about getting money to live.
 There was a case where two children where injured in a car crash, the car was driven by there mother and their court appointed  legal guardian's( this is not the proper term) had to claim for them against her insurance, they would have to prove negligence. I think if you had rider insurance the insurance company would try and mitigate their loses by claiming against the horse owner, the horse owners  insurance should fight the claim.
		
Click to expand...

This a view you can only take if your insured .
If you are a horse owner you can loose your home everything you own because of one bad desision.
Having a horse without insurance is like playing roulette using your home as the chips .


----------



## Rollin (21 October 2016)

As we know, even gold medal winning Olympic Show Jumpers can sustain severe injuries to the neck and spinal cord.

Basic insurance for death, theft and straying or BHS Gold Medal Insurance is not a huge cost compared to keeping a horse.  In the UK we always had Public Liability Insurance, I still insure in the UK for death and theft and on our farm for public liability.

This case is no different to car insurance, in that if someone fractures their spinal column or suffers a major head injury, they will need decades of assisted care for every day things like washing and dressing.  That is why the insurance claim is in the millions.  That is why every horse owner should insure themselves.


----------



## DanceswithCows (22 October 2016)

I find it unbelievable this has got to court tbh.  Any time any humans clambers onto the back of a living animal you are knowingly taking your life into your own hands.  I've gone smack onto tarmac from a canter on a 15hand animal and walked away with bruises.  Yet other people have taken a tumble from a walk plodding round a school, landed funny and broken numerous bones etc.  Even the quietest most trustworthy animal can take a fright, get a sting etc. and act out of character so IMO if you get onto an animal (of any kind) you must always know that you might come away from it hurt, dead, or anywhere in between.


----------



## millikins (22 October 2016)

But can a 14 year old reasonably be expected to have the life skills necessary to assess the risk? I think it unlikely, therefore the adult owner of the horse is required to do so.


----------



## windseywoo (22 October 2016)

I think a 14 year old should know the risks, I did at that age when I was learning to ride. If the girl was supposed to be a better rider than the owner, then she is saying she can handle the horse? It is illegal to drive a car in this country without insurance, so why can it not be the same with horses? I know it would be difficult to impose and there will be people saying its another tax, but if you leave your field and ride on the roads or have someone else ride your horses then you should be insured. Then if anything happens at least you are covered and as said don't have the worry of losing your home to cover costs. Look at this woman who is claiming 1.6 million for breaking her ankle in a car crash, saying she can't work and has her husband not working as her full time career. She worked as a NHS administrator for goodness sake. Being paralysed is obviously life changing and the person should be helped, but she chose to get on the horse in the first place and unfortunately has to live with that, as I'm sure the owner has to live with the guilt of it.


----------



## DuckToller (22 October 2016)

Millikins - spot on I think.

I don't know a single knowledgeable horse friend who would think that putting a child on an ex race horse in an open space is a good idea, no matter what they say their experience is.  

The owner says that the child was more experienced than her (so she is admitting that she knows very little) but having more experience doesn't make you an expert - 'having a pony' when you are 14 doesn't make you experienced in riding other horses.  Who hasn't sat on their pony bareback at that age, it doesn't mean you can sit an ex race horse in an open space.  

The version that the horse broke into trot and the rider 'held her up' (strange terminology for an experienced rider surely?) and the horse cantered and bucked sounds hugely more plausible than the owner's version of she fell off walking down a slope - either she is experienced in which case she wouldn't have fallen off on a slope in walk, or she isn't as experienced as they thought and panicked slightly when the horse broke into trot, grabbed at it and upset the horse further. 

It is negligent to allow someone on your horse if you don't know how it will react in the situation you put it in.  I let my daughter's friend ride my sensible, sane horse in the school but I quickly assessed that she wasn't capable of riding him out, so I didn't let her.

It's normal for teenagers to think they know it all, but as adults we should know they don't and be responsible for them. 

With a lifetime of needing care and help, she has to sue - I for one hope she wins.


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (22 October 2016)

Right people! Let's get this theory of Ex Racehorse out of your heads!!!

This horse is 14yo now. She ran ONCE in a point to point at 5yo. She was so slow and so far tailed off she refused to jump one of the last fences. She has been out of racing for 9 years! So very likely to have done things in those 9 years even if it was only happy hacking!

The bloodlines she holds are well known for being genuine, nice, laid back horses on both sides.

This is not your typical ex-racehorse. They are playing on that aspect and giving these wonderful horses a bad name!


----------



## ycbm (22 October 2016)

Let's get rid of the idea of a child who doesn't know the risks, too. She had a pony of her own which she rode bareback. She went to the pre purchase inspection with the woman who bought the horse and rode it before it was bought. 

I feel very sorry for her. I even hope she gets some money. But is the insurance company or the mother liable?  We'll have to see what the judge says.


----------



## alainax (22 October 2016)

I feel terrible for everyone involved. 

It is understandable why the poor girl is looking to get some help with her now dramatically changed life. 

However, the stress and pressure the owner of the horse is now under must be incredible. All through a genuine accident. I find it terrifying that she could stand to lose everything, and end up millions in debt, bankrupt, losing her home and all her assets, all through an accident. 

Sure if she has appropriate insurance then they might cover it. But many have a claim limit, and the third party cover on some does not cover other riders. 


I can see if it was criminal, and the owner inflicted these injuries on the girl, or if she was found to be completely negligent, But I think a balance has to be struck between holding innocent people accountable for genuine accidents, and to mitigate those who are injured. There is no point in destroying 2 lives here! 

I guess the arguement is going to be centered around if the owner was negligent, and if that negligence resulted in the injuries. 

I am sure like many, when I was 14 I was working in a riding school, breaking and schooling the youngsters that came in. I jumped on everything and it would never have crossed my mind to think about insurance! 

Although this highlights why adequete insurance cover is a must, it would be impossible to insure against every possible scenario in which someone could sue you.


----------



## DanceswithCows (22 October 2016)

Yes I feel a 14yr old would definitely be aware of risk, and certainly her parents (who were apparently rung for their consent?) would/should.  It doesn't make a difference to me whether this was an ex racer, a dressage horse or their lead rein welshie - animals freak out sometimes, and riding them = risk of death and serious injury.  This was not a riding school environment, where inexperienced riders would specifically go, knowing there were horses to match their skill level and insurance to pay out in the event of someone's risk calculations being wrong.  Hop on a friend's horse, deal with the consequences imo.


----------



## alainax (26 October 2016)

Saw this today too
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...biking-course-sues-gung-ho-instructor-4m.html


----------



## Nugget La Poneh (26 October 2016)

alainax said:



			Saw this today too
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...biking-course-sues-gung-ho-instructor-4m.html

Click to expand...

He's certainly kept his options open in his qualification stakes - just on off those options would've kept me busy!!

Just shows that there are risks in everything, and that sometimes accidents happen. No instructor or teacher can protect from every risk, especially when the person being coached or taught can still make their own decision or have full 'control' over whatever they are handling, albeit horse/bike/car/yo-yo.

Feel for all involved - nasty place to find yourself in.

On a side note - can you be a solicitor AND a barrister?


----------



## Dusty M Yeti (4 November 2016)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-37875194

Just found this on BBC news. She's won her case. The owner was insured, according to this BBC article just out, but only for a limited amount.


----------



## horselib (4 November 2016)

So she won Another good reason that no one and I mean no one ever rides my horses Not sure who is in the right or wrong here but lives ruin akl round  one physically and one financially sad for all concerned riding is a dangerous activity


----------



## alainax (4 November 2016)

That result is terrifying.


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 November 2016)

alainax said:



			That result is terrifying.
		
Click to expand...

Only if you have inadequate insurance and behave like a moron.  And have bought a totally unsuitable horse for yourself - from a dealer!


----------



## teapot (4 November 2016)

horselib said:



			So she won Another good reason that no one and I mean no one ever rides my horses Not sure who is in the right or wrong here but lives ruin akl round  one physically and one financially sad for all concerned riding is a dangerous activity
		
Click to expand...

A dangerous activity where risks can be minimised. In this situation they weren't. 



alainax said:



			That result is terrifying.
		
Click to expand...

Idiotic actions have consequences.


----------

