Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

And now we loop around to the original thread, about whether rides  
can ban riders if they bring suit against vets or RMs.

I really do agree.  I don't know if CA has a limited liability rule  
-- I think all states should have them.  There is a huge gray area,  
as you say, about "how safe is safe".    I'm certainly not trying to  
say that RMs should be required to make sure everybody is wrapped in  
fluffy cotton wool.  It isn't possible if you have anything to do  
with horses.  I think that RMs do their best to provide reasonably  
safe trails, etc., and that vets do their best when the inevitable  
emergencies crop up.  The key word in there is "reasonable".

The point I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to make, is that  
there are two ends of the issue:

1)  The rider that brings suit for what most people knowledgeable in  
endurance would not consider to be a valid reason, especially if that  
rider actually precipitated the events by their actions.

2)  The rider that brings suit for what can legitimately be called a  
good reason:  a known danger that was not addressed, etc.

There seem to be some various opinions, some of which seemed to be on  
the extreme end of things, i.e., No rider has the right to bring a  
suit against RMs or vets.  You signed a waiver, so tough.  If you  
bring a suit anyway, we can ban you from future rides.

That position does not address #2.  It makes the assumption that Ride  
Management is never, and could never,  be in the wrong, and riding  
horses is risky anyway, so management is never liable.  It is that  
extreme position that I do not agree with.

(Caveat here -- I'm no lawyer, so if I got this wrong, any lawyers  
are welcome to correct me.)

II think much of it depends on what is "reasonable" to expect at a  
ride.  Since 100 people will have 100 different opinions on what is  
"reasonable", I think that limited liability for equine professionals  
is a good thing.  I am assuming that limited liability laws do not  
say that equine professionals have NO responsibility, but it tries  
(I'm guessing here) to place limits and define what is "reasonable".

And -- JMO here -- I've always thought that the jury should consist  
of people who have experience and/or background in the area.  That  
seems like it would avoid a lot of problems.  However, in my  
experience, the attorneys actively discourage this -- they will bump  
people off a jury if they have any idea of what might actually be  
reasonable to expect in a situation.  For that matter, jury personnel  
are specifically told that they CANNOT use their personal experience  
- they have to only go by what is presented in court, and cannot  
extrapolate from that.  Never made any sense to me.


On Jan 17, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Sisu West Ranch wrote:

> ".. 1)  The trail is scouted, marked, and obviously dangerous places
> are routed around.
>     2)  Road crossings have crossing guards if there is a high
> probability of a collision in their absence..."
>
> These kinds of "duties" are what lawsuits are made of.  Lawsuits  
> about how safe is safe have been lost enough times that all over  
> our country folk become very reluctant to have anything to do with  
> certain activities.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=