A stable hand who is suing her boss for £100,000 after claiming she had a fall from a ‘dangerous’ horse which left her with a crippled arm, has been accused of lying as pictures have emerged on social media of her playing football and rugby.
Hazel Boyd is facing accusations of ‘fundamental dishonesty’ in relation to a damages claim against her employer — Welsh racehorse trainer Debbie Hughes.
Ms Boyd claims she was riding out a three-year-old thoroughbred named ‘Foxy’ in June 2020 when the horse ‘spooked’ and threw her to the ground.
She believes the horse was a ‘dangerous’ animal and is suing her trainer for up to £100,000 claiming that the accident left her with a crippled arm.
But Ms Hughes, of Ty’r Heol Farm, Pantybrad, Tonyrefail, Porth, claims social media posts and surveillance footage of Ms Boyd prove that, rather than having a disabled arm, she ‘is a rugby-playing, football-playing goalkeeper, who is quite able’.
Ms Hughes claims the posts show Ms Boyd getting stuck in on the rugby field and playing as goalie for a woman’s football team.
Hazel Boyd (pictured) is facing accusations of ‘fundamental dishonesty’ in relation to a damages claim against her employer
Ms Boyd’s employer claims social media posts and surveillance footage of Ms Boyd prove that, rather than having a disabled arm, she ‘is a rugby-playing, football-playing goalkeeper, who is quite able’
Hazel Boyd (pictured) was riding out a three-year-old thoroughbred named ‘Foxy’ whilst working as a stable hand for Welsh racehorse trainer Debbie Hughes in June 2020
The High Court heard that Ms Boyd, of Church Village, Pontypridd, was riding the horse – known as ‘Foxy’ but given the racing name ‘Freezing’ – on June 23 2020 at Mrs Hughes’ farm along with a colleague on another horse when she fell off and was injured.
The cause of the fall and the nature of her injuries however is being hotly disputed by the trainer’s lawyers.
Georgina Crawford, for Mrs Hughes, in court documents said: ‘It is admitted that the claimant fell and that she sustained some injury, the nature and extent of which is denied.’
At a pre-trial hearing in the case, judge Deputy Master Stephen Boyd said that the case is complicated by the fact that Ms Boyd is facing an allegation of ‘fundamental dishonesty’ in relation to the seriousness of the injuries she suffered.
‘The defendant says that Ms Boyd is a rugby-playing, football-playing goalkeeper who is quite able, whereas she has been presenting herself as somebody with a significant right arm injury which prevents her from doing anything manual,’ he commented.
Ms Boyd claims that the horse ‘dropped his shoulder’ and ‘jinked sharply’ to the side, causing her to fall off and suffer crippling injuries to her arm.
At a pre-trial hearing in the case, judge Deputy Master Stephen Boyd said that the case is complicated by the fact that Ms Boyd is facing an allegation of ‘fundamental dishonesty’ in relation to the seriousness of the injuries she suffered
She also complained that the horse had ‘spooked’ before when she was riding it.
But Ms Crawford, for Mrs Hughes, denied that the horse ‘jinked’ or ‘spooked,’ causing the accident, adding: ‘It is denied that Foxy was known to take flight more easily than other horses.
‘The defendant will say that Foxy did not spook or shy easily and was no more unpredictable than any other three-year-old racehorse.
‘He was ridden by the claimant approximately 100 times prior to the accident, almost entirely without incident.
‘Whilst it is accepted that Foxy had on occasion spooked previously, it is denied that he had a propensity to spook or that such behaviour went beyond the ordinary behaviour of any three-year-old racehorse.’
Ms Boyd is suing under the Animals Act 1971, claiming the horse was a ‘dangerous’ animal because of its propensity to take fright.
But Ms Crawford told the judge that shying, side-stepping or sharply changing direction is ‘characteristic behaviour’ in thoroughbred racehorses and thus is not ‘abnormal’ behaviour which would make the owner liable under the act.
Ms Boyd is suing under the Animals Act 1971, claiming the horse was a ‘dangerous’ animal because of its propensity to take fright
At an earlier pre-trial hearing, Deputy Master Boyd summed up the claim saying: ‘Basically the claimant, a stable hand, was asked to ride out the horse.
‘Whilst cantering, the house became spooked and the stable hand has fallen off and hurt herself.
‘The issue is whether this horse was a known risk and known to be skittish. This is a strict liability case under the Animals Act. There is no allegation of negligence.’
In September last year, Mrs Justice Hill made an order stating that Mrs Hughes ‘has permission to rely upon the surveillance and social media evidence relating to the claimant’ in her bid to prove she is lying about her injuries.
Ms Boyd denies the allegations of dishonesty and is putting forward expert orthopaedic evidence to back her claim.
The case is set to return to court for trial at a later date.
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source link
