>>> In NC there was a very similar case, where a horse stepped in a small hole in the arena while a potential buyer was trying a horse to buy - the horse stumbled, fell and the riders leg had a compound fracture. The plaintiff in that case won because they proved that the barn owner knew the hole was there and didn't take any precautions to prevent the horse from stepping in the hole - they had the sign also.
I know you're right, Laree. That sort of thing is really scary...but not scary enough to make me quit letting pre-screened and responsible people try my horses. Gosh, the world would be a sad place if we get to that point. But, could you imagine the sympathy a good lawyer could elicit in a jury if the injured party was a child, and the child was the first one to sit on that particular horse - even if the horse just tripped or got tangled in his reins? Don't you think the lawyer would paint the scene straight out of all the old ride 'em cowboy movies, the kind we all grew up seeing where all the horses got "broke" to ride? I don't think that would play too well with a jury. Liability isn't always about the ACTUAL risk. More often it's how the risk is perceived, and I doubt you'd find 12 experienced horseman on a typical jury. I'm very careful, but I refuse to stop sharing the passion of my life because someone COULD possibly sue me. On the other hand, I'm not going to do something where I'd be a sitting duck for a predatory attorney. There has to be an awful lot of sensible middle-ground between having a small kid put the rides on a horse, and totally shutting down your property to visitors forever. I don't plan to do either extreme, but I WILL be careful - both about actual risks and about perceived risks. Karen Thomas, NC
