oh I have, still not comparable to UL event and dressage horses IMO
4 Likes
FWIW - In Canada we just recently had a ruling that confirmed that waivers are actually enforceable and can imply contributory negligence. Look up the case about the two skiiers who sued Blue Mountain for injuries they obtained skiing. The waiver they signed was upheld that they knew and accepted their risk. Obviously the ski hill also had to show they had in fact done everything a reasonable person would do to protect participantsā¦and this is where the FEI comes in with the helmet ruling.
The waivers can hold water, but only if the host (FEI) has done everything a reasonable prudent person would do, in this case, a reasonable person would be enforcing the use of helmets.
8 Likes
If your argument was followed to its logical conclusion, then no competitions would be held at all.
The competitions exist. The FEI already tries to make them as safe as āpossibleā, which includes having professional course designers, available medical care, and all the other rules that govern safety. In your hypothetical, Cross country would hardly be singled out. Horses have died and people are badly injured in Showjumping as well.
Helmets in Dressage closes one liability loophole for them. Who knows if that was their intent, but it is a result of the rule.
5 Likes
That was my pointā given that risk of injury or death is inherent in equestrian sports, the standard of making the competition āas safe as possibleā would require shutting down the competitions.
Short of shutting the competitions down, safety will always be a gray area, in which someone, like the FEI or the USDF, has to draw a line and say āThese measures are worth whatever cost or restriction on sport is entailed for the benefit of safety; these other measures are notā. Most, but not all, agree that requiring helmets is on the dark gray āimpose this ruleā side of the line in which the benefit outweighs the cost, and āeliminate the cross country phase in eventingā is on the lighter gray side in which the cost outweighs the benefit āeven though it would save dozens of lives over the years, eliminating cross country just cuts at the heart of the sport too much to eliminate it.
Once the governing bodies have drawn the lines, it is then up to the participant to decide if they want to knowingly take on the risk of participating and release the governing body from liability if they are injured.
@Jealoushe mentioned that the governing body should follow a āreasonable personā standard. I mostly agree that any reasonable person would wear a helmet. However, Iām not scandalized by Isabell Werth wanting the privilege of taking on the risk of skipping a helmet in a few rarefied competitions. But would a reasonable person sit astride a galloping 1,400 pound horse with their medical information strapped to their arm and jump oversize picnic tables?
I think people should be allowed to voluntarily take on risks that most reasonable people would not ā such as high level cross country jumping ā by signing binding liability waivers.
What you said was that āto make competitions as safe as possible would require eliminating the cross country jumping phaseā.
1 Like
I still think the FEI should come up with some other type of item riders can wear for bragginā rights. Make a new tradition. My inclination would be for something egregiously awesome, like these wings! That would show youāve arrived!
And heās wearing a helmet! All boxes checked!
19 Likes
Making competitions āas safe as possibleā would require shutting down the elements that involve riskā starting with cross country jumping because thatās the riskiest ā but then moving on to show jumping, then dresssge, etc. I agree with you that the logical conclusion of āas safe as possibleā is shutting down all equestrian sports. Thatās why I think it is not a reasonable standard.
Iām serious about adding a sword to the formal show uniform. For safety, it would not have an edge and would always be kept in the scabbard.
1 Like
That was not my conclusion, it was yours. Taking your assertion to its logical conclusion would have Equestrian sport shut down, not just cross country phase of Eventing, which is what you wrote.
You seem to conflate āsafeā with āas safe as possibleā. They are two very different concepts.
2 Likes
I wonāt speak for you. I think using a standard of āas safe as possibleā is not a reasonable standard for the FEI or other governing bodies to impose, because the way I interpret the phrase, āas safe as possibleā means eliminating all risk, and eliminating all risk can only be accomplished by shutting down competitions in sports that are inherently risky. Cross country jumping is the most obvious example of shutting down parting the sport to achieve safety, but logically all equestrian sports would need to be shut down because all inherently involve the risk of injury and death.
If you donāt want to shut down all equestrian sports to eliminate all risk, the govermining bodies are left drawing lines in gray areas.
Cross country jumping could be made more safe by engineering the jumps to fall apart more easily when the horse crashes into them. Why hasnāt that happened?
Your interpretation of āas safe as possibleā meaning āeliminating all riskā is, I have a feeling, unique to you.
5 Likes
Do it!
I agree with you, OP.
It looks out of place with the shadbelly coat. So I say get rid of the coat along with the top hat. We are two decades into the 21st century. Not even Fred Astaire or Lord Peter Wimsey would be wearing top hats and tails these days (or nights).
6 Likes
So what is your definition of āas safe as possibleā?
I donāt think you are understanding the concept Negligence is NOT doing what a reasonable and prudent person would do. We DO understand that reasonable people WOULD ride horses over scary XC fences. It is done every single day in multiple places around the world. The risk in itself is not such a risk that no one would do it. Something a reasonable person wouldnt do might be, ride a horse onto the freeway attempting to jump cars. Or invite people onto your XC course, but fail to check the footing for holes and a horse or rider gets injured.
A waiver simply states that the occupier of the property understands that some activities do bear risk, and those that wish to participate must acknowledge the risk, but in doing so they agree the occupier of the property has done their best to make things as risk free as possible, and thus sign away their rights to sue should they be injured.
1 Like
I think that the standard of āavoiding being guilty of gross negligenceā is different from the standard of āputting in place safeguards that a reasonable person would consider prudentā which in turn is a different standard from āmaking a competition as safe as possibleā.
To go back to the original topic of the thread, since there is statistically (much) less risk of injury or death from wearing a top hat in a 5* FEI sponsored dressage test than in competing in cross country with a helmet and body protector, why is it so obvious and black and white to posters (not just OP) that a āreasonable personā would deny Isabelle Werth the option of wearing a top hat at the World Cup, while giving a 17 year old the option of riding cross country?
I am in favor of the new FEI rule on helmets and think it was too long in coming. I am also in favor of eventers being able to release the show management and the governing bodies from liability in order to assume the palpable risk of cross country jumping, even though it is far too risky an activity for me to participate in.
Iām mostly trying to point out that these issues are not as āblack and whiteā as some posters assume.
If the FEI (understandably) does not want to eliminate the cross country phase in order to make eventing āas safe as possibleā, why doesnāt it make cross country āsaferā and reduce the number of deaths by making the jumps fall apart more easily when a horse crashes through them?
The law understands human wants and needs, and the desire for things like participating in sporting events. The sporting even itself is not going to be refused if it is not a huge danger to the public which eventing is not. However, HOW they may participate IS up to the host. This is why rules and waivers are in place. A person can not simply state - well I didnāt know it was dangerous however you are still liable for my injury. Negligence has to be proven.
Nothing in the law and litigation over negligence is black and white. However the FEI making rules for the safety of riders is not really that hard of a concept to understand. It is the same concept as race car drivers, down hill skiiers etc to have rules/requirements put into play,
If there is something they know reduces the risk of serious injury or death (helmets), they are going to enforce their use. Which is exactly what they have done.
3 Likes
Iām not sure why you are quoting āas safe as possibleā as if it came from the FEI. It was from my post which was not at all some type of verified wording legally approved. It was my simple explanation of the concept of negligence and contributory negligence and how it possibly relates to the FEIs decision.
3 Likes
Quite the discussion. A few points I would like to make:
While a āsuccessfulā lawsuit may seem the standard, any lawsuit carries with it huge time and expense and reputation risk. Any lawsuit will get your insurance company involved, most likely raise your rates and possible cancel your coverage. As to reputation risk: few people follow a lawsuit to its conclusion, but many know that someone was sued. It can and does do real damage.
Waiver of liability may or may not be upheld, depending on a LOT of things: mostly facts, but also the jurisdiction. In some cases they are not worth the paper they are written on. And, whether liability is found still means that the parties go through the excruciating legal process of a lawsuit. See above.
Itās true that, in the US, pretty much anyone can sue for anything. That means naming every party with even a remote connection. Whether, down the road, that party gets dismissed, nobody cares. They just knowā¦oh, see above.
The risks of a lawsuit are far beyond the final finding. Another sensible reason FEI wants to protect itself.
3 Likes
