Ty’r Heol Farm Employer Debbie Hughes Denies Liability for Hazel Boyd’s Injury After Fall from Horse in Porth and Accuses Her of Exaggerating Claims

A stable hand, Hazel Boyd, has found herself at the center of a legal battle after claiming that a fall from a horse caused severe arm injuries.

Boyd, who is suing her employer for £100,000, alleges that the horse she was riding—a three-year-old thoroughbred named “Foxy”—spooked and threw her to the ground during a ride in June 2020.

However, new evidence, including social media posts and surveillance footage, has led her employer, Debbie Hughes, to accuse Boyd of dishonesty.

Accusations of Dishonesty

Hughes, who runs Ty’r Heol Farm in Porth, believes that Boyd is exaggerating the extent of her injuries.

According to Hughes, social media images and surveillance videos show Boyd actively participating in rugby and football, seemingly unaffected by the arm injury she claims has left her incapacitated.

Hughes also maintains that the horse Boyd was riding that day, known in racing circles as “Freezing,” was no more unpredictable than any other young racehorse, making the fall an unfortunate but not extraordinary incident.

The Nature of the Fall and Injuries

The details surrounding the fall are heavily disputed.

Boyd maintains that Foxy “dropped his shoulder” and “jinked sharply,” causing her to lose control and suffer serious arm injuries.

She further claims that the horse had previously spooked, making her nervous while riding.

However, Hughes’ lawyer, Georgina Crawford, rejects these assertions, arguing that Foxy did not exhibit any unusual behavior.

Crawford emphasizes that Foxy’s movements were consistent with those of other three-year-old racehorses, and the horse had been ridden by Boyd around 100 times before the fall without incident.

Legal Arguments and Court Proceedings

Boyd is suing under the Animals Act 1971, arguing that the horse’s actions—described as spooking or sharply changing direction—constitute dangerous behavior that makes the owner liable.

However, Hughes’ legal team asserts that these behaviors are typical for thoroughbred racehorses and do not qualify as “abnormal” or “dangerous” under the law.

At a pre-trial hearing, Deputy Master Stephen Boyd noted that the case involves a strict liability claim, meaning there is no allegation of negligence, but rather whether the horse was a known risk.

Social Media Evidence and Surveillance Footage

In a notable development, last September, Mrs. Justice Hill granted Hughes permission to use surveillance footage and social media content as part of her defense.

This evidence suggests that Boyd’s physical capabilities, including playing rugby and football, contradict her claims of being severely limited by her injury.

Boyd, on the other hand, denies accusations of dishonesty and is presenting expert orthopedic testimony to support her injury claims.

What’s Next for the Case?

The case is far from resolved, and the next step will be the trial, where both sides will present their arguments and evidence.

Boyd’s legal team is standing by their position, while Hughes continues to challenge the validity of Boyd’s injury claims.

The final outcome of this legal battle remains uncertain as the court weighs the evidence presented by both sides.

This article was published on TDPel Media. Thanks for reading!

Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn