Results
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re Tavalario | 901 A.2d 963 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006) | 386 N.J. Super. 435, 2006 WL 1735225 (N.J.Super.A.D.) |
This appeal presents a challenge by Anthony Tavalario to the manner in which the State Agricultural Development Committee (SADC) determines whether keeping horses on property constitutes a "commercial" agricultural operation that exempts the property from local zoning and other land use restrictions as the result of the preemptive force of the Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A. 4:1C-1 to -10.4. The SADC found that Tavalario's use of the land did not qualify for protection under the Act, because he could not demonstrate that, as of July 3, 1998, his operation produced "agricultural or horticultural products worth $2,500 or more annually" as required by the definitional section of the Act. Tavalario contends on appeal that the SADC erred because it failed to consider as income in 1998 uncollected stud fees, the imputed value of a horse sold as a broodmare in 2002 for $8,000 and another horse sold in 2003 for $5,400, and race winnings of an undisclosed amount allegedly awarded at an unspecified time after 1998. The court found no grounds for reversal of the SADC's interpretation of the production requirements of the definition of "commercial farm" found in N.J.S.A. 4:1C-3 or its application to Tavalario's case. |
Case | |
| LaPlace v. Briere | 962 A.2d 1139 (N.J.Super.A.D.,2009) | 404 N.J.Super. 585 (2009); 2009 WL 62875 |
In this New Jersey case, a horse owner brought an action against the person who exercised his horse while the horse was being boarded at the defendant's stable. While the stable employee was "lunging" the horse, the horse reared up, collapsed on his side with blood pouring from his nostrils, and then died. On appeal of summary judgment for the defendant, the court held that the person who exercised horse could not be liable under the tort of conversion as she did not exercise such control and dominion over the horse that she seriously interfered with plaintiff's ownership rights in the horse. While the court found that a bailment relationship existed, the plaintiff failed to come forward with any additional evidence that established the horse was negligently exercised or that the exercise itself was a proximate cause of its death. The grant of summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed.
|
Case | |
| NJ - Equine Activity Liability - Chapter 15. Equestrian Activities. | NJSA 5:15-1 to 5:15-1 12 | NJ ST 5:15-1 to 5:15-1 12 | This New Jersey equine activity liability statute fist begins by setting forth the legislative recognition of the importance of equine activities to the state and the fact that eliminating the inherent risks in engaging in them is impractical or impossible. Further, a participant and spectator are deemed to assume the inherent risks of equine animal activities created by equine animals, and is assumed to know the range of his ability and it shall be the duty of each participant to conduct himself within the limits of such ability. This acknowledgment of the assumption of risk serves as a complete bar of suit and shall serve as a complete defense to a suit against an operator by a participant for injuries resulting from the assumed risks (excluding the exceptions outlined in the statute). | Statute | |
| NJ - Horse - 39:4-15. Sleigh bells on horses attached to a sleigh | N.J.S.A. 39:4-15 | This New Jersey law states that no person shall drive a horse attached to a sleigh or sled on a highway unless there are a sufficient number of bells attached to the horse's harness to give warning of its approach. | Statute | ||
| NJ - Horse Slaughter - 4:22-25.5. Prohibition upon slaughter of horses for human consumption; punishment | N. J. S. A. 4:22-25.5 | NJ ST 4:22-25.5 | This New Jersey law enacted in 2012 makes it a disorderly persons offense to knowingly slaughter a horse for human consumption. Additionally, it makes the knowing sale or barter of horseflesh for human consumption a disorderly persons offense. Violation incurs a fine of not less than $100 and a term of imprisonment of not less than 30 days. | Statute | |
| NJ - Lien, horse stable - 2A:44-51. Right of lien; retention of property when amount due unpaid | N. J. S. A. 2A:44-51 - 52 | NJ ST 2A:44-51 - 52 | This New Jersey law relates to liens on those who keep horses. The law states that every keeper of a livery stable or boarding and exchange stable shall have a lien on all animals left in livery, for board, sale or exchange (and upon all carriages, wagons, sleighs and harness left for storage, sale or exchange) for the amount due for the board and keep of such animal. The keeper has the right, without process of law, to retain the same until the amount of such indebtedness is discharged. Note that the law states “keeper of a livery stable” shall include, but need not be limited to, a proprietor of a stable, a trainer, a veterinarian, a farrier, or any other person who has a financial relationship with the owner of the horse. | Statute | |
| NJ - Livestock - Chapter 8. Humane Treatment of Domestic Livestock. | N.J. Admin. Code tit. 2, § 8-1.1 - 8.7 | NJ ADC 2:8-1.1 - 8.7 | This subchapter establishes humane standards for the humane raising, treatment, care, marketing, and sale of cattle, pursuant to the authority accorded by N.J.S.A. 4:22-16.1. | Administrative | |
| Stoffels v. Harmony Hill Farm | 2006 WL 3699549 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006) |
An owner of a horse farm acquired a new horse that had only recently been broken in and got a woman with some health problems to ride the horse. The horse bucked and threw the defendant off the horse causing injury. The court held that even though riders assume the risk of most injuries, a horse owner can be liable for failure to take reasonable measures to match the rider to a suitable horse. |
Case |