Several examples of head injuries in non-English disciplines here. https://www.horsejournals.com/life-horses/head-first-horse-riding-accidents-and-concussions
9 Likes
Donât get a nosebleed up there on that high horse! 
10 Likes
If you want to quantify the risks of riding dressage, you need to take the total number of folks doing it and then look at how many are dying or crippled by head injuries. Iâm guessing that number is not huge.
And that number may or may NOT be the same as what top riders encounter, and this thread is about top riders wanting to ride in competition without helmets. Since top riders, by definition, know more about the sport than average riders or recreational dressage riders, I see no reason to ignore them. And after all, they are not asking for a BAN on helmets, but merely the right to make their own decision. And if an expert rider decides he/she does not need them, then just how many on this forum have the knowledge and experience to know they are wrong?
Pretending I ignore safety measures for no reason is rude and illogical. I do not try to avoid every risk, but I also do not take every possible safety measure. My car is small, which increases risk. I wear a seatbelt but not a helmet when driving. A larger, heavier car and a helmet WOULD improve my safety by some small amount, but I accept that risk. As do most people on this forum.
The cost of hospital bills is also a red herring. Lots of folks on this forum are overweight, with increased risk of diabetes and heart problems. We do not make diets mandatory for insurance. We insure motorcycle riders. And we insure horse riders who are taking part in a sport with SOME risk even though most of us who ride do not NEED to ride horses.
If the top riders signing the petition were arguing for a ban on all use of helmets, Iâd be furious with them. They do not have the right to impose their idea of risks onto other riders. But it seems that ought to work both ways.
1 Like
Nah. One dead or serious injury is too many. We know helmets help prevent this.
The rest is just your ego talking.
13 Likes
There are hundreds of rules in showing FEI. Donât like this one rule? Then donât show. No one is forcing riders who want to wear top hats to show FEI. Itâs their choice, right?
14 Likes
I can just picture them fancy prancing around their arenas at home in top hats. âLookit me! I earned a top hat!â
2 Likes
I can only assume that the person who wrote this has no idea of the dragon-like qualities many (Most?) top level dressage horses possess lol. And you should also probably define âdropping like flies,â because serious head injuries from horse related accidents are significantly higher when helmets arenât worn, regardless of discipline.
Sorry but the fact that one group of riders chooses not to take basic safety precautions is not a good reason for other riders to follow suit.
And again, these top level international dressage riders are welcome to prance around in top hats or bareheaded at home all they like. But when they are riding in an FEI-sanctioned competition they just have to suck it up and follow all the FEI rules, not just the ones they personally agree with. I really donât see why thatâs an issue for some people.
15 Likes
Do you agree the FEI has the right to reduce its liability by requiring riders to wear helmets in competition? Because thatâs what itâs about.
13 Likes
I agree with everything you said but the above. Go ride working ranch and cutting horses.
Everyone should be wearing a helmet.
6 Likes
I agree with your point, but in the recent death, as I remember it, the rider fell when the horse fell. In the Courtney King case with severe injury, it was also the case that the horse fell.
It is a non sequitor to say that riders should expose themselves to risk of head injury by riding without a helmet because âperfect safety around horses means no horsesâ.
Perhaps @GhR009 has already taken a few falls without a helmet.
4 Likes
How does the FEI take on any liability? Riders and owners must expressly release the FEI, USEF, etc from liability for death or injury in order to compete.
I am thankful that we can release these organizations from liability, otherwise the ambulance chasing lawyers would shut the sport down.
âHow does the FEI take on any liability? Riders and owners must expressly release the FEI, USEF, etc from liability for death or injury in order to compete.
I am thankful that we can release these organizations from liability, otherwise the ambulance chasing lawyers would shut the sport down.â
Anyone who has ever organized a show knows these waivers are more feel-good than anything. Waivers or no waivers, if there is a serious injury at your competition and thereâs anything you reasonably could / should have done to reduce the risk, youâre going to get sued. And youâre going to lose.
As well your own insurance company will insist that you, as the competition organizer, create as safe an environment as possible for competitors. The premiums you pay will reflect this.
While Iâd love to think the FEI genuinely cares about rider safety, I strongly suspect image, risk mitigation, and insurance rates are driving this rule change. Regardless of the reasons for it, the helmet requirement is 100% the right move. I canât believe people are even debating it, honestly.
11 Likes
I think the waivers tend to be very broad and require the rider to hold the FEI, USEF, show management, etc harmless even in the case of gross negligence.
I can see that if an injured rider could prove gross negligence, that the verbiage releasing the show management from liability even in the case of gross negligence might be punctured by a lawsuit. But the FEI itself does not run the show, so itâs hard to see what gross negligence in the part of the FEI would look like.
However, in the absence of gross negligence, Iâve always assumed that I was taking on all risk of injury (and death) arising from ânormal horse behaviorâ, such as bolting, bucking, rearing, kicking, tripping or generally freaking out.
Iâm not an eventer, but I assume that the high level events are run under the auspices of the FEI. In cases in which the rider died after a fall in the cross country, has the USEF, the USDF, or the FEI ever been sued?
The law in California specifically recognizes certain activities (including equestrian activities) as inherently dangerous and stipulates that by choosing to participate in these activities, the participant (rider) is presumed to be accepting the risk of injury and death. Gross negligence (perhaps a trainer putting a beginner on a known equine lunatic) might create liability for the trainer, but the presumption is that the person who puts their butt in the saddle is accepting the to risk. Yes, trainers should still have insurance so that the insurance company lawyers will defend them if someone tried to sue, but I donât think a trainer, show manager or the FEI could be successfully sued (except if there were gross negligence).
Note: The FEI getting sued vs show management getting sued are two different things.
Yes. The very tragic case of Mia Eriksson who died in a XC fall at Galway Downs in 2006.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/sports/olympics/18eventing.html
Allow me to rephrase: Has the USEF, USEA, or FEI ever been SUCCESSFULLY sued over a rider death in competition? There are on the order of 5 to 10 rider deaths globally in eventing per year.
With respect to Mia Ericksson, the articles you posted note that:
- Ericssonâs parents sued her trainer/coach on the grounds that the coach should have known that the horse was not fit for the cross country phase. The USEF and USEA were added as additional defendants, but it looks to me they were added just because âwe might as wellâ sue them too, but that the trainer was the primary target.
- Miaâs older sister had died in a horse related accident three years prior, and the parents sued in that case but then permitted the younger daughter to compete. In eventing.
- A month prior to the Galway Downs event, Miaâs horse fell and suffered a concussion in a prior competition. The original plan was that that was the end of the horseâs competition year.
- Mia then entered Galway, with waiver of liability specifically acknowledging the possibility of death signed by both Mia and her mother.
- In the cross country phase, the horse had refusals at a number of jumps before falling on the NINETEENTH jump.
After losing the older daughter in an equestrian accident three years prior, the parents permit their daughter to train in eventing, and sign a clear waiver for a competition a month after the horse fell and suffered a concussion? The daughter continues on in the cross country phase after the horse has a number of refusals?
The USEF and USEA were probably jettisoned as defendants the first day in court. On the issue of liability of the trainer, the court found that the liability waiver did indeed shield the trainer from liability.
Itâs not as simple as that. For one, I think the horseâs concussion has gained a lot of credence but at the time nobody could say for certain if horses get concussions and if they do, how do you test for it?
Second, you donât know whether the governing bodies were jettisoned or not. Plenty if times in litigation the insurer is the one making decisions about cost/benefit analysis and a partial settlement to get your client out of the case is common.
If you want another case in which everyone was sued, hereâs one where the rider became paraplegic, and one of the issues was whether the fence was the correct height for the level. I canât seem to find the original case but here at least you can see all the parties involved (includes the TD, course builder, and property owners):
It is extremely common that the lawsuit for damages names a long list of defendants, not just the primary target. If the basis of the suit was fault or gross negligence with regard to the height of a fence, I can see the course builder or possibly the TD as possibly responsible, but itâs difficult to see how the Canadian governing body could be at fault. I really doubt that there was significant probability of the Canadian governing body being held responsible, especially if the issue was the height of a fence.
This suit was back in about 2000. Was anyone, for example the course builder, held liable?
Anyone can sue anyone for anything, especially in the US, but the issue is whether an equestrian governing body such as the USEA, USEF, the Canadian governing body, or the FEI has ever been successfully sued by a rider (or survivors) for serious injury or death despite signing a liability waiver.
Iâm struggling to understand the point youâre trying to make: the FEI still has a legal and ethical obligation to make competitions it sanctions as safe as possible - which in this case means requiring helmets for all ridden sports. Pretty black and white, no?
8 Likes
I was disagreeing with your assertion that the motivation for requiring helmets was the FEI wanting to avoid âliabilityâ, given that riders, owners, and trainer/coaches have to sign broad and specific waivers of liability in order to participate.
Equestrian sports, especially eventing, involve significant risk of injury and death. I can imagine someone attempting to sue the show management who prepped the footing or set the jumps, or the trainer who advised a (minor) rider to jump a cross country course on a horse who had suffered a concussion a month prior, for gross negligence. But I havenât seen a single example of a successful suit even there.
While a governing body like the FEI or the USEF may well be added to the list of defendants in these suits directed primarily at someone else, itâs not plausible that the FEI was directly involved in the alleged negligence in setting a jump too high, etc.
I agree with the FEI mandating helmets to reduce risk of injury. But I donât think the motive is to shield themselves from liability- they are already shielded by their iron clad policy of âsign away any right to sue us for injury if you choose to competeâ.
If there were a successful liability suit against the FEI, it would happen in the US, not in Europe. What do you think the consequences would be?
- The FEIâs insurance company would pay $10,000,000 to the parents of the dead eventer.
- Upon being informed that it could no longer obtain liability insurance for competitions in the US, the FEI would refuse to sanction events in the US, or to permit US riders to compete.
The FEI does not have an ethical obligation âto make competitions as safe as possibleâ. The âas safe as possibleâ standard would require eliminating the cross country jumping phase.
Itâs not black and white, itâs gray. Riding without a helmet is very dark gray â most agree that that should be prohibited. But the FEI still has to draw a line among the shades of gray. I agree with the person talking about choice in the sense that an eventer should be able to choose to take on the significant risk of injury or death involved in choosing to compete in the cross countryâ their choice; their riskâ by signing a waiver releasing the FEI, among others, of liability.
If the FEI had to take on the liability of deaths in cross country, or decided to make eventing âas safe as possibleâ by eliminating the cross country phase, eventers would be deprived of their choice to compete in cross country.
I think the FEI has made a sensible decision to marginally improve safety where the âcostâ of doing so is negligible. I donât think their motivation is avoiding liability. At the point that they think theyâre going to be successfully sued for the consequences of the risks inherent in equestrian sports, theyâll close up shop. Or perhaps theyâll jettison the litigious US and just stick to Europe and the rest of the world.
