Liability Question - Long, sorry.

[AmmyHntr]

A friend of mine has a 9 year old daughter that has been taking lessons at a small barn for less than a year. Lessons have been going well. She is still a beginner and has just had her first canter.
Last weekend a fiance' of a family (inlaws) member who wants to start a lesson program called and asked her if she could give her daughter a lesson. Feeling obligated and knowing this woman had shown for some years at the A's my friend said yes and they agreed upon a price. She never had intentions of switching instructors but just having a one time lesson.
I will refer to this fiance' as new instructor (NI). NI is using another person's farm and horses to give lessons. Upon arrival, NI asks BO where the pony is, and if it is a hard catch. Obviously she has never seen pony before.
Lesson goes well for first 20 minutes. Then pony starts getting agitated. Balking and running kid in to fence. BO's daughter says to my friend that pony is getting mad, he has a bad back and he is not used to doing lessons. They usually just ride him around the ring maybe twice. NI is telling kid to kick the pony and pony bolts and runs off with kid. Kid handles things well, gets pony back under control but by this time pony is really upset. NI tells kid to kick pony and MAKE him trot. Pony then rears, unseating kid, kid gets hung in stirrup and pony spins kid like a top stepping on her multiple times before BO catches pony.
BO and mom are trying to evaluate kid when NI tells them to get out of the ring and leave the kid and her to work things out alone. She then makes the kid get back on the pony and tells her she won't let her get off until she stops crying. Kid says her arm hurts really bad and she can't move it. NI tells her to "suck it up."
After lesson NI tells kid to take pony in barn and untack and when mom approaches she said that the kids saddle is a piece of crap and the kid was in the wrong position. She also tells her that her kid is an F***ing drama queen and she needs to suck it up.
Mom and BO agree kid needs to go to ER. ER diagnosis: Broken collar bone, multiple bruises and cuts. Child will need PT to recover plus may never ride again.

Did I mention that neither the BO or the NI had them sign a waiver?

NI then calls mom that evening and tells her she is not liable that her kid got hurt because her saddle is a piece of crap, just an ejection seat and that she was in the wrong position. Never asks how the child is doing.

Soooo, my question is, who could be held liable? I know my friend would never ask for a dime. BO has been very nice and concerned for child. No waiver was signed so if this child had been critically injured would all liability fall on the BO? Is the NI not liable as she states? This happened in VA and I am aware of the Equine Liabilty law. Is the NI neglegent in putting a child on a pony she had never seen before?

Your thoughts on liability and handling of this situation please.

[dghunter]

Don't know the answer to your question but :eek::eek::eek: NI sounds like a trainwreck!

[Char]

Was the mother of the child watching the lesson? As soon as that pony STARTED acting agitated, I'd have marched into that arena, jerked my kid off of it and told NI to F--- OFF!!!!! let alone after the pony REARED and disloged the child and she was crying and saying that SHE CAN'T MOVE HER ARM!!!!!!

WTF is wrong with people? I'd have kicked that NI's ass from here to Kingdom Come for being such a cold-hearted B*tch!

[KBEquine]

Your friend doesn't have to sue. If your friend's child is insured, the insurance company will cover the medical costs per the medical insurance agreement & then sue the barn owner, the NI & anyone else they think is responsible because when you get medical insurance, part of the deal is you give the insurance company the right to sue in your name to recover the costs they're out through someone else's negligence, including the barn owner, the pony owner (if it is someone separate from the barn owner) & the NI.

Naturally, THEIR lawyer will defend by countersuing the parent. Family fiance or not, I'm still surprised when a parent thinks more of not offending the NI who is marrying into the family than she thinks of her own child's safety -- per your description, there were clear indications that something was likely to go wrong & then to put the hurt child BACK on the pony before making sure she was mentally & physically alright is just amazing to me.

Who has what percentage of the liability, or who is "most liable" is strictly for the finder of fact because all we currently know is hearsay . . .

Suffice to say there are plenty of adults who contributed to the poor child's injuries & can share the liability & my guess is after the dust settles, your friend won't be getting an invite to THAT wedding.

[fair judy]

Your friend doesn't have to sue. If your friend's child is insured, the insurance company will cover the medical costs per the medical insurance agreement & then sue the barn owner, the NI & anyone else they think is responsible because when you get medical insurance, part of the deal is you give the insurance company the right to sue in your name to recover the costs they're out through someone else's negligence, including the barn owner, the pony owner (if it is someone separate from the barn owner) & the NI.

Naturally, THEIR lawyer will defend by countersuing the parent. Family fiance or not, I'm still surprised when a parent thinks more of not offending the NI who is marrying into the family than she thinks of her own child's safety -- per your description, there were clear indications that something was likely to go wrong & then to put the hurt child BACK on the pony before making sure she was mentally & physically alright is just amazing to me.

Who has what percentage of the liability, or who is "most liable" is strictly for the finder of fact because all we currently know is hearsay . . .

Suffice to say there are plenty of adults who contributed to the poor child's injuries & can share the liability & my guess is after the dust settles, your friend won't be getting an invite to THAT wedding.

i had to hit quote on this because kbequine is spot on. the mother should be kicking herself, and is first in line for bad judgement, if your comments are accurate.

a lawsuit won't make the kid any better, but it may provide the mother with an avenue to skirt her own responsibility in making bad decisions at every juncture. of course there is plenty of blame to go around.......

[phoenix mom]

The BO should talk to a lawyer ASAP and get statements from any witnesses. This is a CYA situation. She owns the pony, the barn, and gave permission to the NI. At least call her insurance agent. That poor child, hope this doesn't ruin her whole summer.

[Lori]

*sigh* why does everything have to come down to a potential lawsuit?
Mom should have taken kid off pony at the first sign of it acting up.
NI is a trainwreck.
Why after a broken collarbone would the child not be able to ride again? I broke my collarbone at 14 when a pony somersaulted with me and I got on 6 weeks later (only because they would not LET me get on before that!).

I got on a horribly misrepresented pony in my 20's. It was ugly and I got pretty hurt. BUT it was my choice to get on in the first place, so I took responsiblity for it and just never went back to hack for that man.

[Char]

KBEquine:

Thank you, you put it MUCH more eloquently than I did....:lol:

[danceronice]

KBEquine is right--the insurance can and may sue on their behalf.

I would personally guess the 'never ride again' thing might be psychological? Because I couldn't jump my own horse without a panic attack after two in a row nasty falls. And even though those were the trainer's fault (she was an h/j trainer of the bad school--throwing kids new to the sport with parents likewise on "cheap" OTTBs and getting them jumping ASAP whether we or the horse were ready or not) even she knew--if you come off, you stay DOWN until she gets there and makes sure you aren't too hurt, and you only got back on once she (and parents present) decided you were able to. Slam down on your back, never mind get stepped on, and there was no "suck it up." Anyone bleeding, stepped on, dizzy, unable to move a limb, etc, and you were not getting back up, not just because she could get sued but because she was pushy, but didn't want to kill you!

NI is going to kill someone if she keeps up with that. Yes, the parents should have stepped in immediately. But it sounds like they are new to this, and sometimes new parents and new riders have a hard time saying "no" to an authority figure. In this case it especially sounds like there were issues with this because of the family connections. But that doesn't absolve NI from responsibility--not only does she sound like she doesn't know what she's doing (going by the OP), she apparently does not understand the potential for injury in sport, is not capable of recognizing injury when it occurs, does not know the proper procedures for dealing with injury, and as such has no business coaching children.

[2hsmommy]

Why the heck didn't Mom put a stop to the lesson?

Seriously, you go with your gut on these types of things, and Moms gut should of been YELLING at her.

[Bogie]

Bottom line is that in a "lesson barn" situation, the Barn Owner should have liability insurance and the trainer should have her own instructors insurance. If they don't, this might be an expensive lesson for them.

I keep my horse at a private co-op barn. Although the owners will let instructors come on property to teach, the boarders made an agreement that we will never someone teach on their property without instructors insurance.

As to who is "at fault" here? There are so many things wrong with what you've described that it's difficult to know where to start! The difference between making a wrong choice and being "liable" is something that can only be addressed by a lawyer and cannot be answered on a horse forum. However, given what you've said, there were many questionable choices.

Yes, the mother probably should have taken her daughter off the pony before something bad happened, but if she's not a horseperson she might not have realized the full extent of the problem. I rode with a few certified fruitbats as a child and my mother didn't yank me out of any lessons. The good news was I never got hurt that badly.

The trainer had no business teaching a lesson on a pony she'd never seen. I would question her professional judgment for that and for continuing the lesson when the pony began to act up. At that point she'd been able to evaluate the skill of the girl and probably knew the kid was in over her head.

And the BO had no business letting the trainer use the pony in a lesson without explaining its limitations. If the pony was used for twice around the ring rides, she should have clearly stated this. One would hope that the BO and NI would talk about the type of lesson to be given on a lesson horse.

Seriously, did these people talk to each other at all?!?!?

Big loser in this is the kid who now has a summer with a broken collarbone and will have to overcome fear issues next time she gets on a horse.

Note to parents: Riding is a dangerous sport. Choose the lesson program for your child with great care. There are lots of idjuts out there who claim to be instructors who haven't got a clue and who put your child at unnecessary risk.

[Dixon]

Is the NI neglegent in putting a child on a pony she had never seen before?

Yes. And I do not blame the mother one bit for allowing the lesson to continue as long as the NI said it should. The mom was respecting the NI's role in trying to get her child through a lesson, albeit a very difficult one. NI clearly blew it, both in putting the kid on a pony wholly unfamiliar to the NI, and in forcing the child to get back on without properly assessing her injuries. Tough coaching is one thing, but NI went WAY too far in this first lesson.

[AmmyHntr]

Thanks for your replys.

The first thing I said to my friend is that she should have taken her daughter out of there at the first sign of trouble. She is NOT a horse person and tried to trust the NI. She is also sort of timid. She IS kicking herself and will make sure this never happens again.

My friend will NOT sue. She will not cause the problems in the family but out of curiosity I wanted to know if the NI is liable or not as she claims.

[RockinHorse]

First off, I would like to say that I think this whole story has been horribly exagerated.

That being said, I would think that if, as a professional, NI saw the saddle before the fall, thought the child's saddle was an accident waiting to happen and did not do anything about it, they would have a problem should there be litigation.

[fordtraktor]

No one can tell you on a message board whether someone is liable or not. I always shake my head at these threads, because no one here can possibly give you the "right" answer. There is RISK that the NI is liable, and that is all that anyone can tell you for sure.

The fact that NI did not know pony does not mean she is liable for any injury it caused. Otherwise every trainer who took a client to test ride a horse for sale would be liable for anything that happened to the client.

But I would think knowledge of the pony is the least of the mistakes that went on here, on both sides.

[Bogie]

NI then calls mom that evening and tells her she is not liable that her kid got hurt because her saddle is a piece of crap, just an ejection seat and that she was in the wrong position.NI is blowing smoke. She's compounding her bad behavior by trying to (further) intimidate the mother. She doesn't know if she's liable or not. She's making this statement to try to prevent the mother from suing her and trying to shift the blame to something not her fault (the saddle). She doesn't want to admit negligence in case there is a future lawsuit. If the mother isn't planning to sue then it's really a matter for the insurance agency. They might try to recover their costs.

I've been threatened by a lawsuit recently (completely spurious) and this person is always telling me that I will be held liable for this that and the other. My lawyer reminds me that they can say whatever they want but it doesn't make it true. Or, more specifically he said, "did he tell you that you'll be the next Pope? Because that's the level of truth they're dealing with."

Honestly, who would ride with an instructor who says that the child fell off because she was in the wrong position because of her saddle? Really, the point of the lesson was to help the child develop the right position. If the instructor could tell the saddle was putting the child in danger she should have brought it up before the child was hurt. Obviously this NI has been talking to the Web programmer who's been threatening me. They've been reading the same cheat sheet.

[TaffyTowne]

If the mom did sue it would be unlikely she would win a negligence claim against NI or BO. VA is a contributory negligence state, which means if the plaintiff is just 1% negligent and the Defendant is 99% negligent the defendant is off the hook. NI and BO could probably successfully argue that Mom was negligent by allowing her daughter to remain on the pony after it is became agitated. Don't get me wrong, I think NI should be held responsible for her HORRIBLE actions, VA just has some antiquated bad laws!

[cloudyandcallie]

The child is a minor.
While the liability law signs if prominately posted should protect the BO, unless she knew or should have known that said pony was not suitable for riding, the mother of the child and the NI both seem to have been grossly negligent here.
Anyone could sue anyone anytime. Winning in court is a different story.
If I were the parties here, I'd be too embarassed to sue anyone, and I'd be glad that the child is alive and going to recover.
Poor Kid, sounds like her mother and the NI are both incompetent and shouldn't be allowed around ponies or children or sharp instruments.

Check with equinelaw. She has a blog and might have covered this issue.

[N2Equus]

I don't think mom is neglegent. Mom contracted for a service and agreed on a price. Suppose mom had dropped the child off for the lesson as many parents do. Sounds like things happened fast and the mom being a non-horse person relied on the NI to handle things.

NI sounds totally incompetent to give lessons regardless of how much show experience she has. This is the reason USEF is supporting instructors to attend clinics and/or be certified. If nothing else, speaking to her client the way she did makes her incompetent.

[Prima Donna]

TaffyTowne is correct. Virginia is one of the few remianing contributory negligence states. Any fault on the part of the plaintiff in a negligence suit is a complete bar to recovery. Same with a countersuit.

If the mom did sue it would be unlikely she would win a negligence claim against NI or BO. VA is a contributory negligence state, which means if the plaintiff is just 1% negligent and the Defendant is 99% negligent the defendant is off the hook. NI and BO could probably successfully argue that Mom was negligent by allowing her daughter to remain on the pony after it is became agitated. Don't get me wrong, I think NI should be held responsible for her HORRIBLE actions, VA just has some antiquated bad laws!

[AmmyHntr]

First off, I would like to say that I think this whole story has been horribly exagerated.

That being said, I would think that if, as a professional, NI saw the saddle before the fall, thought the child's saddle was an accident waiting to happen and did not do anything about it, they would have a problem should there be litigation.

Wish I were exagerating. I didn't say anything about the other girl who was jumping a course of 2'6" fences while the child was having problems, the reason child had to use her own saddle is because NI didn't have one and NI was standing on the other side of a huge ring yelling at the kid to "kick, kick, kick." All the while knowing pony was agitated and had already bolted with her. BO was in the barn and got to child and pony before NI did. Mother was sitting on a two story deck watching. Could hardly get down in time to help. Remember this child is a beginner.

Ditto on the professional shouldn't have let her use the saddle if she thought it was unsafe.

fordtraktor:The fact that NI did not know pony does not mean she is liable for any injury it caused. Otherwise every trainer who took a client to test ride a horse for sale would be liable for anything that happened to the client.

I would think when you contract a riding lesson there is some sort of assumption that the instructor and horse/pony are suitable for the contracted service. :( JMO

[fordtraktor]

I would think when you contract a riding lesson there is some sort of assumption that the instructor and horse/pony are suitable for the contracted service. :( JMO

Even if that were true, that does not prove NI knew or should have known the pony was ill-suited.

NI could have talked to pony's owner and been told it was fine, been told by BO to use the pony, who knows. There are all sorts of reasons why, even if true, your assumption would not mean NI is liable.

[gasrgoose]

First, I don't like law suits.

But it seems to me the BO is the one who really made the mistake (don't know if that means liable). He/she let some "want to be" trainer with no place to teach and no ponies to teach with come to their barn and create chaos.

The BO either knew the NI and then should have known they were a danger. Or if they did not know the NI, and the BO should not have allowed it to take place.

But, what the heck was the Mom thinking with a beginner rider and "a one time lesson" with someone that doesn't currently teach. I would think next time she wouldn't "feel obligated". This isn't piano lessons!! People can & do get hurt riding horses. Sometimes by freak accidents and sometimes by people who are in situations they never should have been in.

I've got an 11 year that has 3 ponies and has been riding since she was 5. She shows on the AA/A circuit and has developed into a pretty good rider. BUT I would NEVER let her take a lesson from someone who I hadn't 1st watch give a lesson and 2nd didn't have glowing recomendations. It's the parents job to look out for the kid and in this case she made a bad decision. Doesn't mean she is a bad parent, just made a bad decision. So did the BO, doesn't mean she is legally liable, but my guess is she wouldn't do it again.

[RockinHorse]

Wish I were exagerating. I didn't say anything about the other girl who was jumping a course of 2'6" fences while the child was having problems, the reason child had to use her own saddle is because NI didn't have one and NI was standing on the other side of a huge ring yelling at the kid to "kick, kick, kick." All the while knowing pony was agitated and had already bolted with her. BO was in the barn and got to child and pony before NI did. Mother was sitting on a two story deck watching. Could hardly get down in time to help. Remember this child is a beginner.



Were you there when the incident occurred? Just curious, why did you not say something to the mom that she should stop the "lesson" and get her child?

[Nickelodian]

It's hard to imagine the story isn't exagerated considering a broken collar bone doesn't generally cause someone to "never ride again". Now perhaps she is too scared to ride, but the collar bone itself is not a "career ending" injury.

[Nikki17]

Waiver or not, anyone could potentially be held liable if the defendant can prove negligence. Waivers aren't as ironclad as everyone thinks they are.

[Mara]

It's hard to imagine the story isn't exagerated considering a broken collar bone doesn't generally cause someone to "never ride again". Now perhaps she is too scared to ride, but the collar bone itself is not a "career ending" injury.


That's what I took it to mean - that the child has had the beejeezus scared out of her to the point of not wanting to ride again.

[Chef Jade]

If your friend has no intention of pursuing a lawsuit, it doesn't matter who is potentially liable. Why get involved?

If at any time the mother thought her daughter was in danger she could have removed her from the situation.

[gottagrey]

generally when it comes to lawsuits everyone is named first and then depending on the case and lawyers some might be dropped - but even if you are dropped doesnt' mean you haven't racked up legal fees... BO and wannabe NI could both potentially be liable. NI because she is a lousy instructor who from the description has no business giving lessons to anyone. Telling a beginner to "suck it up" after they've been trampled is a bit absurd. This is not the PBR! I too wonder if this story hasn't been exagerated - the pony reared/bucked, spin steps on kid.. NI makes kid get back in saddle and won't let her get off until she stops crying - now NI is on the hook for child abuse as well! Where was the mother with all this - one thing not to be able to get to ring to prevent rodeo - another not to intervene when child is crying and NI is being abusive - this kid is 9 right?

NI sounds like a nutcase who has no business teaching riding lessons - blaming it on the saddle - come on - ever see what lesson program saddles look like?

BO - offered up a pony that apparently is not too suitable for beginner riders... even if the pony was a saint and the child fell off - it's her propery and since the accident happened on her property she would be liable - the same way a store employee doesn't leave a "wet floor" sign in the right location a patron slips and falls. Sues who - THE STORE.. not the employee, not the manager but the STORE.

Waivers don't mean jack...

A friend of mine was sued by a fellow she dated a few times, he was "raised" riding and showing ponies so he knew how to ride. Fell off horse. bumped into her 2 years later at happy hour - asked if she still owned that horse (he dislocated his knee which he had originally injured playing high school football) A few days later she was slapped w/ a negligence suit.. for knowingly owning an 'unsafe" horse and negligence. The case dragged on for 3 years! She won but did she - legal bills were around $20K

[Coreene]

When I had my very bad fall, my insurance company contacted me afterwards to see who owned the horse. I asked why, and they said it was so they could go after the owner. Oliver stepped on a friend's foot and she needed her toenail removed. Same with her insurance company wanting to go after me. Happens each and every day.

[fourmares]

The NI is probably liable. She failed to act in the manner that a reasonable trainer would. She was giving a lesson to a beginner on a pony that she knew nothing about. When the pony started acting up she was put on notice, by the BO daughter that the pony was not suitable or sound (bad back) and she continued dispite the warning and the pony's escalating bad behavior. If she indeed felt that the childs saddle was unsafe and putting her in a bad position she should have said so at the beginning and done something to remedy the situation. The part I find most appauling and the part that would make me file a law suit if it were my kid, is what she did after the accident. She prevented the mother and the BO from assessing the childs injuries, and then made the child get back onto a pony which may have caused further injuries, that had just reared and trampled her, and berated her for crying (IMO all but torchering her.) Then she makes the kid lead the pony back to the barn and untack it, potentially exacerbating the injury.

I imagine that family events ought to be a blast from now on.

[nlk]

Doesn't this make you all want to jump up and be horses professionals?:D

IMO This trainer was trying to make her self look good in a bad situation. She was hoping to get the Daughter into her program to give it a kick start. The OP already said she took her daughter to a lesson with a soon to be family member who has show and riding experience because the NI called and wanted to give her a one time lesson, the NI knew the mother wasn't about to say no and was banking on her eventually changing trainers.

(this just goes to show that not every good show rider makes a good trainer/instructor, and every trainer/instructor doesn't make a great show rider, there's to much stock in showing when looking for a suitable instructor but that's a whole other can of worms.)

I think it's unfair to claim the mom should have taken daughter off at the first sign of trouble. Mom is not into horses so she likely didn't recognize the signs until someone started asking questions (like the OP), told her what was happening (like the BO) or assured her that everything was fine ( trainer who is a soon to be family member and one would assume would to intentionally cause harm to a family member)

I have been an instructor for 10 years. I always tell new parents to stay seated should their child fall off. Often the parents reaction causes the child to panic. They could also cause other harm to other riders by spooking other horses in their panic. If a child is hurt I will call another instructor or professional into the ring if one is available to help assess the situation and remove the child from the ring if possible. If the child can not get up I would also call the parent into the ring. I have had to do this maybe 3x in the years I have taught (thankfully) the rest of my students brush themselves off and get back on. sometimes they go into the bathroom and get a drink of water but if they are not injured the always get back on, tears or no tears.

I have also pushed a children to continue riding a "willful" horse. They may not like it BUT it makes them better riders, would I expect my parents to pull their child off when a pony doesn't want to trot, NO.Would I expect them to pull a child off a horse who doesn't want to leave his friends? NO (and I think that is more dangerous at times then a pony bulking) Have a put kids back on after getting bucked off? Yes if they are capable of handling it. A beginner I would get a different horse for if the pony was bucking and not controllable by rider, but my other riders get thrown back on.

I have also told children that they need to stop crying, if they are not hurt there is NO reason for tears while riding in my class. I am however more likely to pull a child off then make them stay on for tears.

Here's where the problem is. There is a fine line between being firm and being negligent. I believe NI crossed that line and then some. First being rude is ALWAYS unexceptionable and it amazes me every time I watch these parents who pay these trainers berate their child simply because the trainer has a good show record. Second if BO said "hey pony's lame/sore/etc." the NI should have stopped the trot and worked on walking exercises or taken the kid off and apologized for the inconvenience. Third she never seems to asses the riders condition. If a child tells me they can't move their arm I ask them to describe the pain, try to squeeze my hand and I will look the area over for bruising or swelling. I will also gently push on the area to check for a reaction, if I get a reaction we take child and look at more closely.

Here's where mom steps in and says Shut your trap and get away from my daughter. Family be damned no one will talk to my child like that and does something that is obviously hurting my child.

It takes years of working with children to recognize fear from pain. I have had riders who say their back hurts after getting the wind knocked out of them. Usually it's from panic, they can't catch their breath. I had wonderful mentors while I was learning to teach so I got advice on these situations.

Is that to say I am always right? NO but I trust my instinct and if a child/rider says they really hurt and need to get off they get off


So to answer your question, NI is negligent, BO is simply because it's her pony, she should have also stepped in and said you're done with my pony she's hurt. Mom should have sucked it up after the kid got hurt and put her foot down then and there, anything before that you can't blame her. Unfortunately courts don't always look at things in that way though.

Sorry so long but there is a LOT of things to take into account

[Tiki]

If you can't move your arm, that's just about a sure sign thay your collar bone is broken. The kid should have NEVER been put back on the horse. Almost nothing else matters!

[bascher]

Yes. And I do not blame the mother one bit for allowing the lesson to continue as long as the NI said it should. The mom was respecting the NI's role in trying to get her child through a lesson, albeit a very difficult one. NI clearly blew it, both in putting the kid on a pony wholly unfamiliar to the NI, and in forcing the child to get back on without properly assessing her injuries. Tough coaching is one thing, but NI went WAY too far in this first lesson.

If I was ever in a situation where I was being forced to get back on after I said that I was badly injured, you could bet on it that my mother would NOT just walk away from the situation even if the instructor said that I had to suck it up and deal. My mom would be out there saying no she doesn't have to suck it up and deal, she is going to the ER NOW.

[Thomas_1]

The barn owner is most likely the one that is liable. But it really depends on what basis the instructor was engaged for hire. Was the Instructor an employee of the Barn Owner or acting in his/her own right and self employed.

It shouldn't be a massive case and a quick claim initiated with a lawyer's letter should be promptly dealt with by their insurance company.

Can't quite understand why the mother watched while that was all happening but hey ho it takes all sorts and she must be feeling incredibly guilty now!

I sincerely hope she takes more care about where she sends her daughter in future. Poor kid! No one deserves that sort of bad treatment or experience, let alone a child.

[Giddy-up]

Wouldn't you just love to be a fly on the wall at their family functions this summer?

"so NI, how's the new lesson teaching business going?"

"hey kid, why the sling? don't you ride anymore?"