Ridden out of school

In recent years, equine insurers, saddled with spurious claims, have ridden out of the riding schools market, leaving NFU Mutual, Faraday and South Essex Insurance Brokers among the few active players. This prompted press reports to last year claim that the riding school - a staple of UK life for generations - was facing extinction. In response, the Association of British Insurers and representatives of riding establishments got together to set up a working party to examine the issues.

Under the Riding Establishment Act 1970, owners are required to insure against liability for injuries resulting from the hire or use of their horses. Caroline Berens, a partner at Kennedys, explains that rising insurance premiums are leading to an increasing number of uninsured establishments, which would breach licence conditions.

Graham Cory, chief executive of the British Horse Society, and chairman of the ABI's working group, says: "Many proprietors of riding schools were concerned at rises in premiums, sometimes in the order of 100% and 200%, which bore no relationship to their claims record or risk management."

Others challenge the view that insurance would be the principal reason for such centres to close. Bob Pluck, sales director of South Essex Insurance Brokers, comments that the way the government applies business rates is a more likely culprit. "There are a number of features in centres closing down, of which insurance is but one," he remarks.

Market sense

Whatever factors caused insurers to exit the market, everyone agrees that attitudes to minor injuries have changed. David Miles, liability director at loss adjusting firm Quest Gates, spends a lot of time investigating equine claims. "Genuine accidents are occurring but the perception is that just because a rider has an accident, they can make a claim."

Ms Berens adds: "The size and number of claims against equestrian establishments are both increasing. Horse riders have a higher risk of serious injury than participants in most other sports and problems have arisen due, for example, to riders' overestimation of their own skills and competence. This leads to allegations, following an accident, that they should have been provided with a more placid horse."

Riding establishments need to be licensed if horses are kept for hiring out, riding or for instruction in return for payment. Licences are renewed annually following a satisfactory report from a veterinary inspection, and conditions may be attached to them. Mr Pluck would like to see a more efficient, centralised licensing function for riding schools, to replace the current licensing authorities. He points out that an authority in a rural area might have six riding establishments to license, while one in a more urban area has one. He believes this can result in inconsistent interpretation of the rules.

The licensee must also have liability insurance, which is why the tight capacity in the market is such an issue - without insurance they cannot carry on. The British Horse Society was concerned that some individuals offering forms of livery service were trying to circumvent legislation covering riding establishments, and in many cases were operating as unlicensed riding establishments. It, therefore, issued guidelines both to counteract abuses of the Riding Establishments Acts of 1964 and 1970 and to ensure the welfare of the horses involved. Furthermore, the Animal Welfare Bill, currently going through parliament, will give power to enact legislation to update, for example, the acts, and establish a licensing scheme for livery yards.

Duty of care

So what are the duties of riding establishments? "They have a duty of care to visitors, spectators at a show, other horse riders and as an instructor to pupils, both under health and safety legislation and occupiers' liability for injuries caused by hazards on the property," explains Ms Berens. "There are also common law duties to ensure a rider is as safe as reasonably practicable, taking into account that riding is a risk sport." She adds that the standard of care owed to children at riding schools is higher because they cannot be expected to take the same care of themselves, as would an adult.

Contractual disputes

While legal liability issues arise generally in negligence, Andrew Hunn, a partner at Davies Lavery, says there may also be contractual disputes, along with potential liability to employees and volunteers, to customers or owners of horses, riders and the general public as to what riders do on the road.

"There is potential strict liability under the Animals Act 1971, under which a 'keeper' of the animal is the owner or someone who has it in their possession," he explains. "The potential for strict liability to attach makes it essential to distinguish between situations where it does apply and where there is a need to prove negligence."

This issue has become more critical since the case of Mirvahedy v Henley, in which three of the defendant's horses escaped from their field, breaking an electric fence, a barbed wire fence and undergrowth and got onto a dual carriageway where they collided with the claimant's car, causing damage to it and to him. It was concluded that the escape was triggered by some unknown event that panicked the horses. Once on the dual carriageway, their fear increased, causing their behaviour to become "uncharacteristic".

This was caught by the second part of the Animals Act 1971, section 2(2)(b), which deals with usually non-dangerous animals that behave in a way that is out of character.

Unusual behaviour

"Horses do not normally behave as the defendant's horses did on the night of the accident," notes David Moon, a partner at James Chapman. He says more claims have followed Mirvahedy. "Claimants used to have to prove negligence but now may have the additional element of the Animals Act.

Normally the horse would have to get over a bad fence for there to be negligence but a good fence does not help with Animals Act cases. It must be within the relevant sub-section, however, and there are cases where animals have been on the road and caused an accident when the court said the Act did not apply."

Often horses have been out to grass and then brought in for riding; however, if they have not done this for a while, the horses may be reluctant, observes Mr Moon. Owners who are aware that every year after being brought in a horse's back is stiff and it may buck but still go ahead and let it be ridden can be liable.

"It is a medical problem that an equine chiropractor can treat the horse for and then, after a few weeks, it is alright. Generally, fit horses won't buck if properly broken in," explains Mr Moon. "It is natural for a horse to suffer pain when mounted but at that particular time it would be displaying an 'abnormal' characteristic by bucking as it is not normal to have a bad back - so strict liability under the Act could apply." Another example is a horse that gets spooked by cars, and then throws its rider.

When it comes to risk management, Ms Berens has several suggestions.

Employers must be made aware of the importance of continued skills development among staff, and the person considering the allocation of horses should be suitably qualified and familiar with each horse's character.

In addition, the wearing of suitable safety clothing should be enforced and horses should be fit and not overworked, with all equipment and tack regularly inspected and maintained. Equestrian establishments should carry out detailed risk assessments, as well as safety checklist procedures.

These could include checks to ensure fencing is secure, no equipment is left lying around and that gates can be opened and closed easily.

Novice riders

Mr Miles comments: "A lot of novice riders fall off. Riding is inherently risky and the instructor should not put a novice on a four-year-old thoroughbred. A typical injury is a fractured arm, leg or vertebrae. Novice riders also get injured because they fall off at low speeds, meaning they don't roll."

He adds: "Riding schools are starting to conduct risk assessments but they are a bit generic, and need to be more bespoke." Balancing the removal of unnecessary and disproportionate risks with the need to retain a real challenge for experienced horses and riders is what is needed. And the working group also suggests that better record keeping is key to helping riding establishments defend claims.

"Most riding establishment proprietors recognise the need to keep rider, horse, instructor and accident records," says Mr Cory, "but the working group is aware of cases where a carelessly worded accident report has served to show the riding establishment in a bad light in court."

He explains that the problems faced recently have largely involved spurious claims against such establishments, and lawyers on the working group have said that if better records had been available they could have resisted many of the claims.

"Schools need to be more assiduous and conscientious, using the forms we have devised," adds Mr Cory. "There is also a need to coach them - arranging seminars through the year."

Draft forms produced by the working party so far include a horse assessment form, a rider registration form, and an instructor/escort details form.

"There is certainly a need for a co-ordinated approach across the industry," says Ms Berens. "While each horse will have its own records, including a description kept by the local authority and its vet, the records required are limited. The horse assessment form has a useful section to record details of the history of the horse prior to it joining the establishment. This should include details of vices and training."

She adds that compliance with codes of practice and legislation, along with evidence of compliance, should enhance the defence of riding establishments.

Insurance rates

As to whether the steps suggested so far will translate into lower premiums, Mr Corey says there is still a concern about insurance rates - they are unlikely to fall significantly but could improve in due course.

Duncan Brown, chairman of the Association of British Riding Schools, thinks the worst of the crisis is probably over: "You get ups and downs in claims, with 'ups' resulting in price hikes and insurers leaving the market."

Although riding schools occupy large premises, he points out that they are micro businesses. Many have ceased to provide riding tuition and have gone in for livery. "The minute you provide tuition the premiums rocket," he says. "It is difficult to say the situation is easing - as most schools have had large increases - but we have long-term hopes for the working group." He sees the group's activity as an attempt to reduce the amount of claims: "Insurers are making it known what riding establishments have to do."

The outcome of the working group - which has not yet fully reported - is hoped to be greater capacity in the market. NFU spokesman Tim Price declines to comment on this until the group reports, but ABI spokesman Malcolm Tarling, observes: "This is a work in progress. In recognition of the difficulties some riding establishments were having, the ABI is trying to improve their accident reporting, and get a better handle on each other's position. Insurers need to understand the practicalities of riding establishments; the establishments, in turn, must understand the need for good health and safety."