• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Horse Accident-Lady went into my property and was injured by my horse

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

P

Paint

Guest
A lady went into my property (without my premission) which was fenced and gates were locked. She evedently jumped the fence and decided to ride one of the horses. The horse threw her off and trampled her pretty badly.

She's now suing me for negligence(proximate cause)-Stating that she had a conversation with me about her purchasing the horse and that I had told her that the horse was of a very mild nature and that anyone could ride the horse, thus accusing me of giving her premission to go in (jump the fence) and ride the horse. Obviously that's not true but such is the accusation. Houston, Texas.
 


L

lawrat

Guest
I am a law school graduate. What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney client relationship.

Very easy. YOu counter sue for trespass. See, you didn't know she would jump the fence and you did go to great lengths to protect the property (gates/fences). She decided to take it upon herself to commit an illegal act.

Trespass is the mere act of going onto someone else's property; placing an object on someone else's property and/or placing someone else on that property. Now, here, she was an unknown trespasser. Which means, you don't owe her anything and actually can recover statutory damages for her simply going onto your property. The cause of action for which you would sue is trespass.
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Arial, Verdana, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lawrat:
I am a law school graduate. What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney client relationship.

Very easy. YOu counter sue for trespass. See, you didn't know she would jump the fence and you did go to great lengths to protect the property (gates/fences). She decided to take it upon herself to commit an illegal act.

Trespass is the mere act of going onto someone else's property; placing an object on someone else's property and/or placing someone else on that property. Now, here, she was an unknown trespasser. Which means, you don't owe her anything and actually can recover statutory damages for her simply going onto your property. The cause of action for which you would sue is trespass.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

Sorry, Lawrat. The woman's whole theory, if you re-read our writer's post, is that the woman is basing her action for damages upon misrepresentation, and that she had, at the very least, implied consent to be on the property. Remember, our writer said that she was there to consider purchasing the horse, and that "it was very mild to ride, anyone could ride the horse" or words to that effect.

Also, her cause of action is further based upon our writer's negligence for failure to supervise and failure to warn of the danger.

IAAL



------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."

 

HomeGuru

Senior Member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Arial, Verdana, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE:
My response:

Sorry, Lawrat. The woman's whole theory, if you re-read our writer's post, is that the woman is basing her action for damages upon misrepresentation, and that she had, at the very least, implied consent to be on the property. Remember, our writer said that she was there to consider purchasing the horse, and that "it was very mild to ride, anyone could ride the horse" or words to that effect.

Also, her cause of action is further based upon our writer's negligence for failure to supervise and failure to warn of the danger.

IAAL

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IAAL, with all due respect, the writer is stating that the injured plaintiff is making such allegations and claims. The writer has stated that the injured lady is saying these things not the writer. The writer denies giving permission (as evidenced by locked gates) therefore the lady was a trespasser. Defendant writer denies giving implied or express consent, so the counterclaim by lawrat should stand.
If you don't agree I'll call Wilbur on you to kick up some horse sense.
Gotta go, got a nail in my shoe and these flies are getting on my nerves.

Mr. Ed
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Arial, Verdana, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HomeGuru:
IAAL, with all due respect, the writer is stating that the injured plaintiff is making such allegations and claims. The writer has stated that the injured lady is saying these things not the writer. The writer denies giving permission (as evidenced by locked gates) therefore the lady was a trespasser. Defendant writer denies giving implied or express consent, so the counterclaim by lawrat should stand.
If you don't agree I'll call Wilbur on you to kick up some horse sense.
Gotta go, got a nail in my shoe and these flies are getting on my nerves.

Mr. Ed
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My response:

Dear HomeGuru:

I understand the post. I was merely conjecturing the lady's Causes of Action (Claims) against our writer/property owner and his defenses. In short, she says that because of the purchase discussions, she had, at least, implied permission to enter, and further, our writer misrepresented the horse's attributes when she took a "test drive".

Our writer's defense will be that there was no permission whatsoever, and no representations concerning the horse - - or, if made, that his representations concerning the horse were different than what she is alleging, and further, that she was to wait while he was present to let her into the corral before she took that fateful ride.

It'll be a "horse race" to win the lawsuit against our writer.

IAAL


------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."

 

HomeGuru

Senior Member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Arial, Verdana, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE:

My response:

Dear HomeGuru:

I understand the post. I was merely conjecturing the lady's Causes of Action (Claims) against our writer/property owner and his defenses. In short, she says that because of the purchase discussions, she had, at least, implied permission to enter, and further, our writer misrepresented the horse's attributes when she took a "test drive".

Our writer's defense will be that there was no permission whatsoever, and no representations concerning the horse - - or, if made, that his representations concerning the horse were different than what she is alleging, and further, that she was to wait while he was present to let her into the corral before she took that fateful ride.

It'll be a "horse race" to win the lawsuit against our writer.

IAAL


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree but I'd rather be riding a mule on Molokai.
I Dig A Pony.

HomeGuru
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top