Owner’s and Trainer’s Liability

[naps]

Thank you wit for your usual thorough and insightful feedback. However, as unlikely as it may appear, should the verdict go in the favour of Kinane, even if it is less than the original 1m offered, how would this potentially affect racing in the future? Would an owner of a fractious racehorse be open to action by a jockey if he unseats/injures him? Even worse, an unruly animal unseats his jockey midrace then runs loose and proceeds to cause havoc at a fence, bringing down and injuring other participants. Will that horse’s connections be in a situation where they could potentially be sued?

[wit]

AP,

could he recover the licence immediately once discharged, or is there a waiting period imposed by the HRA?     if the latter, Kinane’s lawyers may be banking on him "finding" more money somewhere – from friends or whatever.

Lingfield,

On the general point about wealthy / non-wealthy owners, another aspect that Kinane’s lawyers may have in mind is that quite ordinary home insurance cover often extends to maybe unexpected things away from the home.      

They might be trying to get the owners to look at public liability cover that might be wrapped into such insurance to the tune of one or two million.

<br>(Off-topic: home insurance is also always worth checking if one gets into an employment dispute – legal costs of pursuing such dispute are also often covered up to about £50k so don’t necessarily fear to take on an employer for lack of funds to fight).

best regards

wit  

[wit]

naps,

i think the thrust of the Animals Act for horseracing is that if a keeper of an animal knows of a potentially dangerous tendency or quirk, they have to pass that on to certainly any rider and probably also to anyone else who may be at risk as a result.

the cases tend to go back to horses being left unattended on a public highway and bolting, where there has been liability even to a "good samaritan" volunteering the initiative in attempting to catch them.

unless a horse has a known abnormal dangerous tendency, i rather doubt its keepers could be held liable for what happens in the rough and tumble of a chase.

more likely in the latter case might be an action against a negligent / incapable jockey as the more proximate cause……but IMO even that is likely to be a "blue moon" event as regards legal liability.

best regards

wit

[ratcliff]

The broken fences case where lthe Henleys were held to be liable for their horses must be considered – especially as it reached the Lords and dealt with the strict liability issue in the Animals Act on a majority decision

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p … irva-1.htm

”The appeal raises one question: is the keeper of an animal such as a horse strictly liable for damage caused by the animal when the animal’s behaviour in the circumstances was in no way abnormal for an animal of the species in those circumstances?”

”I also agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal on the facts in the present case. Horses are large and heavy animals. But it was not this innate physical characteristic of the defendants’ horses which caused the road accident. The horses escaped because they were terrified. They were still not behaving ordinarily when they careered over the main road, crashing into vehicles rather than the other way about. Hale LJ concluded that it was precisely because they were behaving in this unusual way caused by their panic that the road accident took place: see [2002] 2 WLR 566, 571. That conclusion, on the evidence, seems to me irrefutable and to be fatal to the case of Dr and Mrs Henley. ”

<br>

[apracing]

<br>Wit,

The issue of a trainer being declared bankrupt isn’t specifically covered in the Rules, so I’m not sure what the procedure would be in terms of regaining the licence.

Oddly there are rules covering bankrupt owners, who immediately become disqualified persons, and that applies even if the bankrupt is only a member of a syndicate. In that case, the entire syndicate has  to be re-formed and the horse cannot be entered until that’s completed.

AP

[Wallace]

Let’s hope this case does not succeed and common sense wins.  Ian Semple is very highly regarded by his owners and can count on a lot of support.  

Bankruptcy or as it is know in Scotland sequestration lasts for three years before discharge.  It would be a disaster for the sport to loose such a talented trainer over this case.

[wit]

<br>Wallace,

Its actually down to 1 year now also in Scotland under Section 1 of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Act 2007, which got the Royal Assent on 15 January 2007:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scot … 003_en.pdf

Not sure if the commencement order for that section has yet been made, but one assumes the start date would not be too far off to benefit Mr Semple if things came to that pass.

best regards

wit

[Wallace]

Wit, many thanks for keeping us up to date with the legal detail.  One year looks a bargain!!!

[jinnyj]

As a bankrupt, Semple would indeed lose his licence as in the case with Phil McEntee recently.  However should an owner of his be prepared to employ him and take over responsibility for all costs, then I believe after satisfying the Licensing Committee at the HRA, he would be able to resume training.

I think I am right in saying that Giles Bravery was also declared bankrupt but allowed to train as an employee.

(Edited by jinnyj at 6:02 pm on April 8, 2007)

[Author]

Posts