A woman claiming a serious arm injury after a fall from a horse is now being accused of dishonesty, as new evidence raises doubts about the severity of her condition.
Hazel Boyd is suing her former employer, racehorse trainer Debbie Hughes, for £436,000, claiming that her arm was left disabled after a dangerous incident involving a thoroughbred named “Foxy.”
However, her credibility has been questioned after surveillance footage and social media posts suggested she may have exaggerated her injuries.
The Incident and the Lawsuit
In June 2020, while working at Hughes’ farm in South Wales, Boyd was riding Foxy, a three-year-old thoroughbred, when the horse allegedly spooked and threw her to the ground.
Boyd claims the fall caused significant damage to her right arm, including a severe break and dislocated elbow.
She argues that the injury left her unable to continue her career as a rider, and is seeking compensation for lost earnings, amounting to £368,000, along with other damages.
Despite these claims, Boyd has since started a doggy daycare business, raising questions about the impact of her alleged disability.
Accusations of Exaggeration
Boyd is facing accusations of “fundamental dishonesty,” with Hughes’ legal team suggesting that her social media activity and surveillance footage prove she is not as injured as she claims.
Surveillance videos show Boyd walking a husky with her “bad” arm and even participating in rugby training.
In court, Boyd denied that walking the husky with her right arm was an indication of her abilities.
She explained that she used her left arm to break any potential fall, and that she was taking painkillers to manage her condition.
The Rugby Training Controversy
Another piece of footage shows Boyd engaged in rugby training, a sport she had been involved in before the accident.
Boyd admitted that she had resumed training, but clarified that she was no longer playing in matches.
She emphasized that training was non-contact and that she had been advised to continue in the hopes that it would help her recovery.
According to Boyd, the footage showing her training was not an indication that she had returned to playing rugby at a competitive level.
Disputed Facts and Testimonies
While Boyd acknowledges the injury to her arm, Hughes’ team insists that she has exaggerated the extent of the disability.
Boyd’s lawyer argues that she has been honest about her limitations, stating that she cannot return to work in the racing industry due to her injury.
They further argue that despite the surveillance footage, medical experts support Boyd’s claim of a serious injury, noting the ongoing pain and limitations in her arm.
The case hinges on whether Foxy’s behavior on the day of the fall was abnormal.
Boyd claims the horse spooked, but Hughes’ legal team denies that the horse was prone to such behavior, noting that Boyd had ridden Foxy many times without incident.
Boyd’s lawsuit, under the Animals Act 1971, claims that the horse was dangerous due to its tendency to take fright, but Hughes’ team argues that this behavior is typical for a thoroughbred.
What’s Next?
The trial continues as the judge weighs the evidence from both sides.
The key question is whether the horse was truly dangerous or if Boyd’s injuries were a result of ordinary behavior.
The outcome of the case could set a precedent for similar lawsuits involving animals and injury claims in the future.
This article was published on TDPel Media. Thanks for reading!
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn