Someone commented above about the possibility of a lawsuit arising out of this incident. Of course, the rider in this incident can initiate a lawsuit against the clinician, but there are a number of factors which would make it difficult for the rider to win.
First and foremost, if the suit is charging negligence, there must be little evidence of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence consists of any act, or failure to act, by the plaintiff which contributed to the injury.
If it can be proved that the rider “knew better” than to jump over a metal pole–and proof may simply be the rider’s sworn testimony that s/he was told by other trainers, or read in respected publications, that jumping over metal could be dangerous–that could constitute contributory negligence. If it could be proved that the rider “knew better” than to jump over a metal pole yet continued to do so, following the rider’s “free will,” that could constitute contributory negligence. And if it could be proved that the rider returned to the clinic the second day and continued to jump over the metal pole, that could constitute contributory negligence.
Part of the difficulty in this lawsuit is that the sport of jumping is inherently dangerous. What would have to be proved is that metal poles are more dangerous than the norm, that metal poles are less accepted by the general jumping population.
Remember in a civil lawsuit the burden of proof is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in criminal cases, but “the greater weight of evidence.” That means, simply, if there is evidence of negligence on the clinician’s part (setting up devices which can be dangerous, or more dangerous than other jumps), but also evidence of contributory negligence on the rider’s part (continuing to participate in a situation known to dangerous), then it’s up to the jury to decide which party’s argument holds the greater weight–which party is “more wrong.”
The wild card in this whole thing, of course, would be the jury. Remember the case where the plaintiff held a cup of hot coffee in her lap, it spilled, she was burned, she sued for and was awarded millions (which was appealed, if I remember, and reduced)–all for doing something that she probably knew better than to do.
There were also comments in above posts about sanctions against the clinician by the AHSA or other official bodies. I’m not conversant with AHSA regulations, but I’m not sure how sanctions can be ordered. Even though many people agree the clinician should have known better, the incident is still an accident–no deliberate intent to injure this horse–a much different type of accident than, say, administering too much medication too close to show time.
Which isn’t to say that the AHSA can’t make a statement condemning unsafe training practices. An official statement may seem to be so much nothing–and perhaps it is–but it would serve a purpose. The statement could serve as “official disapproval” and could also help deflect any criticisms from extreme animal rights groups, a concern of a writer in an above post. It would acknowledge, responsibly and maturely, a problem in the sport and would express official intolerance of the unsafe practice.
A statement of regret from clinician would also be an appropriate and honorable response. It would be satisfying to read one.
Some posters have expressed outrage that the clinic was continued. Recall that car races, football games, and even equestrian competitions–turf and track racing, eventing, rodeo–continue after grave injury to the participants. While I know how I would have responded, I just can’t condemn the clinician and other participants for coming back the second day. I can agree that it was a poor decision to use the metal pole again.
And I cannot condemn the passion and outrage–what other readers have deemed as hatred–in these posts. I admire people who think, but I also admire those who feel.