Horse riding is dangerous and riders cannot sue when they fall off, judge rules Ms Turnbull had been helping to exercise "Gem" whilst her friend was pregnant, but disaster struck in March 2006 when she was trying out a "bitless bridle" on her mount. Should riders be able to sue schools and owners if they are injured? Gem, who had never misbehaved before and always responded to his rider's instruction, took off across an open field, swerved through a gap in a hedge near his stables in Milton Keynes and threw her onto the road. Ms Turnbull, of, Hanslope, Milton Keynes, suffered a nasty head injury which her lawyers say triggered chronic migraines and other symptoms from which she has yet to fully recover. She claimed damages from Ms Warrener, Browns Wood, Milton Keynes, whose lawyers fought the the case every inch of the way. She was sued under the controversial 1971 Animals Act, which imposes "strict liability" on animal keepers if they are aware that they have particular "characteristics," not normally found in their species, which create a risk of serious injury. Exonerating Ms Warrener today, Lord Justice Lewison, sitting with Lords Justice Stanley Burnton and Maurice Kay, said: "The evidence was that riders fall off horses every day and do not sustain severe injury. Almost anyone who has ever ridden will have the experience of having fallen off a horse, getting up and remounting. I do not, with respect, regard it as self evident that a rider who falls off a rearing horse, or for that matter a cantering horse, is likely to suffer severe injury. The court earlier heard Ms Warrener had asked Ms Turnbull to try out the "uncommon" bitless bridle with Gem as he had a sore mouth after having his teeth rasped. Gem had previously worn the bridle when walking and trotting in an enclosed space, but the accident happened the first time it was used with him in an open field. Ms Turnbull broke him into a canter before she lost control and he bolted. David Regan, for Ms Turnbull, said Gem had previously been "generally docile," but the bitless bridle gave Ms Turnbull less control and its owners' manual specifically warned that "horses may behave unpredictably on using new equipment." However, Mr John Snell, for Mrs Warrener, said Gem's refusal to slow down was "not due to a characteristic of the horse." Emphasing that "all horses can be unpredictable," he said riding can be a risky sport and it would be wrong to hold his client liable for Ms Turnbull's injuries. The barrister argued Ms Turnbull had "consented" to the inherent dangers of horse riding and today's Appeal Court ruling means she will go uncompensated for her serious injuries.