Hunt accident horse riders loses High Court case against hunt and land owner

J.R.

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/news/courts/hunt-accident-horse-riders-loses-high-court-case-against-hunt-and-land-owner-38122293.html

Landowners will not be comfortable handing over shooting & hunting rights if danger of being sued for obstacleas on their land.

lefthooker

Ms Begadon claimed the obstacle was a hazard and was foreseeable

And she proceeds to jump it

It illustrates all that's wrong in this country when her instinct is to look to blame and put her hand out for compo instead of accepting responsibility for actions and stupidity. Fair play to the judge, it's about time they started dismissing such cases. The hunt is finished in our area as most land owners won't allow them in, partly for fear of litigation but more so because of their "I'm the big lad" behaviour.

tac foley

These are the kind of people who sue a home owner for damages when they try and break into the property and hurt themselves. Happens a lot over here.

Mostly unsuccessfully, I might add.

Over in North Wales today, we read that an historic landmark, the Pontcysyllte Viaduct, is going to have substantial and expensive modifications made to its safety railings, after an 18-y/o wriggled his way outside them and fell to his death as a result.

fits

I’m sorry she had such a serious injury but it’s one of the risks of the game. If everyone went to court after a fall it would finish it off.

Squatter

tac foley wrote: »

Over in North Wales today, we read that an historic landmark, the Pontcysyllte Viaduct, is going to have substantial and expensive modifications made to its safety railings, after an 18-y/o wriggled his way outside them and fell to his death as a result.

I don't believe it! Next thing we know they'll be fencing off the cliffs around Beachy Head!

Surely the rights of adults to do whatever they wish includes the right to make a bona fide attempt to win a Darwin Award.

dodderangler

Never classed anyone on a horseback wearing suits and tight leggings as a hunter of any sort anyway.
Don’t see why land owners would want them near their land anyway. Can imagine the state they leave the place.

Eddie B

dodderangler wrote: »

Never classed anyone on a horseback wearing suits and tight leggings as a hunter of any sort anyway.
Don’t see why land owners would want them near their land anyway. Can imagine the state they leave the place.

Yes, they really have no interest in hunting anything. It's all about horses and jumping ditches. Most never see a fox caught or killed. In fact, any of the hunts round here, haven't caught a fox in years lol.

Foot packs are a different story though. They set out to do a job, and do it well.

Grizzly 45

Eddie B wrote: »

Yes, they really have no interest in hunting anything. It's all about horses and jumping ditches. Most never see a fox caught or killed. In fact, any of the hunts round here, haven't caught a fox in years lol.

Foot packs are a different story though. They set out to do a job, and do it well.

So kind of lends weight to the arguement that they only manage to kill old or infirm foxes?Beats me how they ever manage to kill any sort of a fox in the first place with all that racket and toing and fro ing. Whatever floats your boat I guess...However,I'd rather be fighting the anti hunting mob in their backyard than in my front room.So they serve a purpose.

As for this one.Suck it up buttercup.You took a jump that was stupid and above your experiance in a exercise you had little or no experiance of,and now you want compo for your stupidity.

jmreire

J.R. wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/news/courts/hunt-accident-horse-riders-loses-high-court-case-against-hunt-and-land-owner-38122293.html

Landowners will not be comfortable handing over shooting & hunting rights if danger of being sued for obstacleas on their land.

It has now gone to the stage ( and beyond) that it's becoming impossible to have any kind of interaction with anyone else for fear of litigation...slowly, slowly, the light's are starting to go out in Ireland. Even visitors to the family home can now be a source of litigation. From todays Independant:
Firms buying off dodgy claimants to avoid fighting cases: ex-judge
Pretty accurate summation by a Judge.
Question is when will things change???

Eddie B

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So kind of lends weight to the arguement that they only manage to kill old or infirm foxes?Beats me how they ever manage to kill any sort of a fox in the first place with all that racket and toing and fro ing. Whatever floats your boat I guess...However,I'd rather be fighting the anti hunting mob in their backyard than in my front room.So they serve a purpose.

As for this one.Suck it up buttercup.You took a jump that was stupid and above your experiance in a exercise you had little or no experiance of,and now you want compo for your stupidity.

Very true. Just look what happened in the UK when other forms of fieldsports tried to distance themselves from fox hunting. They also lost other forms of hunting with dogs, and now the fiasco with crow and pigeon shooting. We cannot afford to go down the same road, or we will forever regret it. I've seen it here on this forum before. Lads saying that snaring, fox hunting, and fox digging is cruel, and should be banned. One things for sure, if we do not stick together, then the games all but over.

BryanL

Great judgement from the judge.
My view of people's ability as hunters is never influenced by what they wear. Be it Tweed or camoflage or someone riding a horse in riding gear.

Most of these people only hunt to rise horses, that's true, but some shoot to work dogs. Are they lesser hunters?

gozunda

dodderangler wrote: »

Never classed anyone on a horseback wearing suits and tight leggings as a hunter of any sort anyway. Don’t see why land owners would want them near their land anyway. Can imagine the state they leave the place.

As far as I'm aware - this isn't a hunt bashing thread. As a landowner the local hunt and shooters who I know are welcome. The sue me and bull****ting brigade are not. The courts and insurance companies have a part to play in stopping this type of rubbish tbh.

Just on yer rant - those that hunt on horse don't wear 'suits' or 'tight leggings' (sic). Much like any other outdoor activity- horse riding requires clothes which are suited to the activity. The 'leggings' are breeches which are worn in all equestrian activities and the wool jacket protects riders from thorns etc and often fairly nasty weather conditions. Sythethic stuff wouldn't last five minutes.

Tbh I'm sick and tired of the usual imaginations that go on about both hunters and even shooters. On a hunt forum - it's little better than puerile tbh.

meathstevie

If I read the article correctly this individual crossed a water course to enter the field a significant distance away from the downed tree she attempted to jump. In other words she had to go out of her way to go and look for the obstacle to jump.

When subsequently it became clear that neither she or the horse or both were up to it and she ended up injured she decided it was a good idea to try and extort money from the hunt and the landowner by means of legal proceedings.

Fair dues to the judge for calling it for what it was; nonsense.

We'd be in some state if claims like that were successful. The IRFU and every rugby club in the country for example could be successfully sued by players who completely misjudge a tackle or ruck and end up injured as a consequence of their own mistakes.

Eddie B

I would have thought that members of Hunts would have insurance, similar to what we have? Surely there's a couple of falls during your average Sunday morning hunt.

looksee

Hooray for the judge. If people must go galloping around the countryside through land they don't own and have no permission to be on then they should not expect compensation if they injure themselves. Not only 'no permission' but they feel free to break down fences/boundaries to get on to the land and no amount of 'Private, Keep Out' notices makes any difference at all. Twenty horses can churn ground up so that paths are not walkable.

Eddie B

looksee wrote: »

Hooray for the judge. If people must go galloping around the countryside through land they don't own and have no permission to be on then they should not expect compensation if they injure themselves. Not only 'no permission' but they feel free to break down fences/boundaries to get on to the land and no amount of 'Private, Keep Out' notices makes any difference at all. Twenty horses can churn ground up so that paths are not walkable.

Surely for the most part, Hunts must have permission to hunt the land they use? Also, I'm sure any damaged fences/ ditches are repaired by the hunt.

I saw a tv program a few years back, showing the ins and outs of a Hunt in the UK, and i must say, it was well run. After each fence was jumped, they had people on hand, who mended any fences/ditches, and left them pretty much the way they got them.

I would hope that this was common practice, and that Hunts are respecting the land and also the land owners.

Odelay

Eddie B wrote: »

Surely for the most part, Hunts must have permission to hunt the land they use? Also, I'm sure any damaged fences/ ditches are repaired by the hunt.

I saw a tv program a few years back, showing the ins and outs of a Hunt in the UK, and i must say, it was well run. After each fence was jumped, they had people on hand, who mended any fences/ditches, and left them pretty much the way they got them.

I would hope that this was common practice, and that Hunts are respecting the land and also the land owners.

My experience is they have permission, frequently will not go into areas they have no permission, they do repair afterwards. People do get injured but just get on with it and don’t claim. That’s my experience but I’ll sure someone will be around to say different. Not all hunts are the same.

byhookorbycrook

I'd imagine the hunt were crossing the land with the land owner's permission, who may well have been out themselves. That's what happens on most hunts- there are local "meet managers" to talk to local farmers/landowners.

If hounds cross land they aren't supposed to be on, the huntsman follows but not the rest of the field. Most hunts also have fence repair crews in action and anyone not listening to the field master re riding headlands etc, gets sent home. The woman in the case above didn't listen to the field master.

Grizzly 45

ANY hunt worth its salt will not tresspass and make every effort to repair damage.They survive on the good graces of the landowners,without them,they have no land to ride over. However,there like everywhere some bad apples, and it seems to be mostly th so called "farmer hunts".Which seems to be every gobdaw and local yokel with a horse and an attitude. A few years ago I refused both a established local hunt and a farmer hunt from crossing my lands.Not because of any dislike,but because the fields in early March wer just to wet to be able to support that kind of traffic. The established hunt had no problem and were fine about it. the Farmers OTOH,tried to convince my tenant farmer to let them onto the land behind my back.:mad: He told them where to get off too.So I'm thinking maybe it is thers unregulated hunts that might be the bigger problem and giving everyone a bad name?

gozunda

looksee wrote: »

Hooray for the judge. If people must go galloping around the countryside through land they don't own and have no permission to be on then they should not expect compensation if they injure themselves. Not only 'no permission' but they feel free to break down fences/boundaries to get on to the land and no amount of 'Private, Keep Out' notices makes any difference at all. Twenty horses can churn ground up so that paths are not walkable.

Not having a go at you - but to be fair thats the type of generalised rubbish iscabs and their friends come out with to blacken everyone. As above most properly organised hunts imo - as the local hunt here look for permission for access. There's times it hasn't suited and so far tbh I've had no problems. Fences have been put back in order etc. That said the odd time theres been the odd guy I dont know hunting / shooting without asking. So yeah it could be a problem. Eitherway It's always best to ask. Any gob****es trying to make a claim are most likley not regulars I can guarantee you. Like the person in this case - they were not a regular and had the neck to sue.

extremetaz

Grew up doing the horsey thing - knocks, fall's, breaks, LCI's and even deaths are all part of the assumed risk; much the same as motorcycling really.

Any hunt I ever rode with had the full permission, and regularly the co-operation, of the landowner; as well as that of the owners of any right of way required to access the land in question.

As mentioned farther back, whilst the jackets can be pretty much anything weather and thorn-proof, the jodhpurs are an absolute essential as any loose material will ball up and pinch your thighs (try going for a hack in jeans sometime if you're really feeling masochistic!).

Most hunts I've been on were coursed and the hounds were just along for show - so yes, it was purely about navigating obstacles in a natural environment, but there are many who do go out with a purpose and are regularly successful (in my area at least).

Ground does get torn up and it's best practice and good etiquette to stick to headlands.



As for the incident in question - judge seems to have got it right. Inexperienced and overconfident rider failing to assess the dangers appropriately.