Insurance, illegality and horses...

[SavageHoutkop]

A bit of an odd thread title, I apologise.

I posted a link on my FB about a blog http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/ which I enjoyed reading.

In the comments that followed, it was stated that 'horses must have insurance'. Is this true? I can't find anything to confirm or deny.

Also, if someone is insured currently (be it car / bike / horse whatever) are they actually covered for 3rd party damage if riding illegally? My initial thought here was drink driving, but it could also apply to speeding.

 

[welsh dragon]

You must have some kind of public liability insurance to take a horse on the road in case of accidents. However, there is no taxation on a horse much like riding a bike. A horse and its rider has the same rights and obligations that all, other road users have.

 

[Profpointy]

You must have some kind of public liability insurance to take a horse on the road in case of accidents. However, there is no taxation on a horse much like riding a bike. A horse and its rider has the same rights and obligations that all, other road users have.

I find "must have insurance" extremely hard to believe

 

[SavageHoutkop]

Who has the insurance? The horse owner? The rider? What about children riding?

 

[welsh dragon]

I find "must have insurance" extremely hard to believe

I dont mean must have as In legally, but as in surely it is in your own best interest especially as something as large as a horse can cause a huge amount of damage not only to the rider, but to other traffic. Much like cyclists take out insurance. I do think it should be a legal requirement though given the size and unpredictability of horses and the fact that if a horse does panic, there isn't a lot a rider can do to, stop it.

 

[broadway]

According to http://www.bhs.org.uk/membership/insurance-faqs insurance is not compulsory for horse riders, but is for things like riding schools.

 

[Profpointy]

I dont mean must have as In legally, but as in surely it is in your own best interest especially as something as large as a horse can cause a huge amount of damage not only to the rider, but to other traffic. Much like cyclists take out insurance. I do think it should be a legal requirement though given the size and unpredictability of horses and the fact that if a horse does panic, there isn't a lot a rider can do to, stop it.

ah but if the horse panics, the rider is likely not liable..

 

[fossyant]

[QUOTE"Profpointy, post: 3321239, member: 20456"]ah but if the horse panics, the rider is likely not liable..[/QUOTE]
Rider is in charge so would be liable on a public road or path.

 

[welsh dragon]

ah but if the horse panics, the rider is likely not liable..

That wasn't the question though. The question was is insurance required by law and the answer is no.

 

[steveindenmark]

Horses need insurance under the Animal Act of 1971.

Having been a horse owner I can say without a doubt that some are escape artists. There is no 100% guarantee that they will not get out of a stable or enclosure. Horse insurance covers many aspects not just escapism and damage to people or property.

 

[SavageHoutkop]

Thanks for the link broadway - it states:

"How many horses am I covered to ride?
You are insured in respect of public liability for any horse that you own or have permission to ride, on the condition that they are used purely for recreational purposes. There must be no business activities undertaken on your part as the gold member."

So, that means that the insurance is for the *rider* not for the *bike*. Which is interesting as I don't own a car, but if I wish to borrow a friend's, I need to be on their insurance for their car; I can't get my own as a driver. But bikes, I presume, if it's 3rd party cover (like CTC's) it's rider (bike irrespective) but if it's theft it's bike (rider irrespective).

 

[Profpointy]

Horses need insurance under the Animal Act of 1971.

Having been a horse owner I can say without a doubt that some are escape artists. There is no 100% guarantee that they will not get out of a stable or enclosure. Horse insurance covers many aspects not just escapism and damage to people or property.

I had a look (admittedly cursory) and didn't see any mention of insurance

Bear in mind a horse is not (in law) a "dangerous" animal thus liability would require negligence or blame, so merely the horse panicing would likely not mean liabilty unless rider was doing something stupid - strict liability is reserved for "dangerous" animals (presumably lions and the like)

 

[SavageHoutkop]

welshdragon one of the links I did find yesterday stated that one rider whose horse did do some damage (and who was insured) had insurance which refused to pay out as the rider had done everything she could to control the horse. She moved companies after that (!). Can't find the link now.

(probably related to the point that profpointy made while I was replying!)

 

[welsh dragon]

I had a look (admittedly cursory) and didn't see any mention of insurance

Bear in mind a horse is not (in law) a "dangerous" animal thus liability would require negligence or blame, so merely the horse panicing would likely not mean liabilty unless rider was doing something stupid - strict liability is reserved for "dangerous" animals (presumably lions and the like)

It isn't black and white. There are many variations and different cirumstsnces that would be taken into consideration. A horse would be treated like any other vehicle on the road. There is no one easy answer.

 

[PK99]

I dont mean must have as In legally, but as in surely it is in your own best interest especially as something as large as a horse can cause a huge amount of damage not only to the rider, but to other traffic. Much like cyclists take out insurance. I do think it should be a legal requirement though given the size and unpredictability of horses and the fact that if a horse does panic, there isn't a lot a rider can do to, stop it.

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/equine_law/damage_liability_and_horses

Statutory Liability
The Animals Act 1971 contains, amongst other things, provisions about the civil liability of owners for damage which is done by their animals. This act governs owner’s liability for damage caused both by dangerous and non-dangerous animals. In the case of non dangerous animals, the owner will be liable for damage where three conditions are met:

1. The damage is of a type which the animal would be likely to do if it was unrestrained;
2. The damage was due to characteristics which were not normally found in that type of animal, or which were found in that type of animal only at specific times and in specific circumstances;
3. The special characteristics were known to the owner

This act is unusual in that unlike many other acts of parliament which impose liability on people, it does not limit this liability to situations in which that person is careless or reckless, or where he fails to take reasonable steps to prevent the risk. This was considered by the House of Lords in 2003, which decided by a two to one majority that in the absence of any such provisions, the act must be interpreted as imposing a strict liability on the owners of horses.

Strict liability is a problem for horse owners, because it means that even if they have taken all reasonably precautions to prevent the risk of damage from materialising, they may still be legally responsible for that damage under the Act.

The 2003 House of Lords decision also made it clear that ‘panic’ was to be considered a special characteristic which is only found in horses under certain circumstances. It therefore follows that where horses are spooked and stampede in panic, the owner may well be liable for any damage caused. This makes it very difficult for horse owners to defend personal injury claims, and if you find yourself in this situation you should consult a specialist equine law solicitor.