Equine Issues

Displaying 1 - 10 of 275
Titlesort descending Summary
AK - Equine - Equine Activity Liability Statute Two Alaska statutes are provided here that relate to the limitation of liability for equine activities. The first is the equine activity liability statute, which states that livestock are unpredictable and inherently dangerous and all persons who knowingly place themselves in proximity to livestock for any reason involving an activity that includes livestock are considered a participant in livestock activity and assume the risk. Exclusions include gross negligence of the equine sponsor, knowledge of faulty tack or equipment, and failure to properly ascertain the level of competence by the participant. The second statute reiterates that a person who participates in a sports or recreational activity assumes the inherent risks in that sports or recreational activity, including horseback riding.
AL - Entertainment - § 40-12-111. Horse show, rodeo, or dog and pony shows. This Alabama laws states that every horse show, rodeo, dog and pony show, or like exhibition or show, where any charge is made therefor, shall pay a license tax of $25 for each day of performance.
AL - Equine - Immunity of those involved in equine activities. This Alabama statute embodies the legislature's recognition that persons who participate in equine activities may incur injuries as a result of the risks involved in those activities. This statute provides that for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, and to encourage equine activities, civil liability of those involved in equine activities is limited by law. Liability is not limited when the equine sponsor intentionally injures a participant or engages in willful or wanton behavior that causes injury or death.
AL - Horsemeat - 2-17-15. Sale, offer for sale, transportation, etc., This Alabama statute states that no person, firm or corporation shall sell, transport, offer for sale or transportation or receive for transportation in intrastate commerce any carcasses of horses, mules or other equines or parts of any such carcasses or the meat or meat food products thereof unless they are plainly and conspicuously marked or labeled or otherwise identified as required by regulations.
AL - Mobile - Chapter 7: Animal and Fowl (Article VI - Horse Drawn Carriages)


In Mobile, Alabama, animal-drawn passenger vehicles are restricted to horse drawn carriages. The following ordinances provide the restrictions and requirements placed upon the operations of these carriages within the city.
Alaimo v. Racetrack at Evangeline Downs, Inc.


A racehorse breeder  and owner brought suit against a racetrack for the loss of future winnings after a racehorse collided with a negligently maintained gate on the racetrack.  The trial court awarded plaintiff $38,000 without specifying what the award was for.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision holding the award was not unreasonable based on the horse's racing history.
Allison v. Johnson


Appellant was injured by appellee’s horse when appellant was standing outside a horse arena waiting for the appellee.

 

The horse began to shuffle backwards and backed into a gate, which popped out of a bracket and struck the appellant in the face.

 

The trial court found and the court of appeals upheld the finding that the appellant was an “equine activity participant” because she was a

spectator

to the “normal daily care of an equine.” In addition, the appellee was determined to be an “equine activity sponsor” due to the fact that he was an “operator” of a stable where the equine activity occurred.

 

Thus, the equine immunity statute of Ohio is applicable to the appellee.
Amburgey v. Sauder


Plaintiff was bitten by a horse as she walked through a stable.

 

The court determined that Plaintiff was a “participant” for the purposes of the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA), and thus the Defendant stables owner was insulated from liability arising out of the unanticipated, abnormal behavior of the horse.
American Horse Protection Ass'n v. U. S. Dept. of Interior

Appellants (American Horse Protection Association and a member of the joint advisory board created under the Act) initiated an action in the District Court against the Dept. of the Interior, alleging violations of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and other federal statutes in connection with a roundup of horses on federal lands. In January and February of 1973, there was a roundup of horses (said by appellants to be wild and free-roaming) on public lands near Howe, Idaho. The District Court for the District of Columbia, granted summary judgment for appellees, rejecting appellants' contention that the Brand Inspector lacked authority under the Act to determine ownership conclusively. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found the District Court's construction of Section 5 unacceptable. This Court did not believe that Congress intended to abdicate to state officials final determinations under Section 5 on ownership of wild free-roaming horses and burros on federal lands. Thus, the Court held that final role is reserved to the Federal Government. The judgment appealed from was reversed, and the case was remanded to the District Court.
American Horse Protection Ass'n, Inc. v. Lyng


This case resulted from a remand by the Court of Appeals after the USDA denied the plaintiff's application for additional rulemaking for the Horse Protection Act to expressly prohibit the use of ten ounce chains and padded shoes in the training of show horses. The use of these materials, argues plaintiff, constitutes soring (the act of deliberately injuring a horse's hooves to obtain a particular type of gait prized at certain horse shows. The object of soring is to cause a horse to suffer pain as its feet touch the ground). This Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. In doing so, it directed the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to institute rulemaking procedures concerning the use of action devices on show horses. The Court further held that the existing regulations are contrary to law and that the Secretary ignored his mandate from Congress under the Horse Protection Act.

Pages