|
MI - Equine Liability - Chapter 691. Judiciary. Equine Activity Liability Act |
This act stipulates that an equine sponsor or professional, or any other person, is immune from liability for the death or injury of a participant, which resulted from the inherent risks of equine activities. However, there are exceptions to this rule: a person will be held liable for injuries if he or she commits a negligent act or omission that results in the proximate cause of injury or death, and if he or she fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the participant. In addition, a person will also be held liable for the injury of an equine activity participant if he or she is injured on the land or at a facility due to a dangerous latent condition of which was known to the equine sponsor, professional or other person. |
|
Missouri Veterinary Medical Bd. v. Gray |
An unlicensed Missouri equine dentist (Brooke Rene Gray) appeals an order from the circuit court enjoining and prohibiting her from doing business as "B & B Equine Dentistry," where she performed equine tooth floating and other acts. In 2007, the Missouri Veterinary Medical Board informed Ms. Gray that she was violating Missouri law by practicing veterinary medicine without a license. After she did not cease her activities, the Board referred the matter to the Attorney General, who then filed a petition on behalf of the Board to enjoin Ms. Gray's activities. On appeal, Ms. Gray contends that the court order violates the Missouri Constitution, which guarantees all citizens the right to enjoy the "gains of their own industry." The court disagreed, finding that the State has a strong interest in regulating practices that involve public safety as is the case with veterinary medicine.
|
|
MN - Equine Activity Liability - 604A.12. Livestock activities; immunity from liability. |
This Minnesota statute comprises the state's equine activity liability statute. The act is not limited to equines, but rather extends protection from liability to participants engaged in "livestock activities." It is important to note that this provision and exemption from liability applies only to non-profit entities. Liability is not limited where the livestock professional knowingly used faulty tack, the person failed to reasonable care to protect the participant from a known, human-made dangerous condition, the person is a livestock activity sponsor and fails to comply with the notice requirement, or the act or omission of the person was willful or negligent. |
|
MN - Minneapolis - Title 4: Animals and Fowl (Chapter 76 - Stables) and Title 13 - LICENSES AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS (CHAPTER 303. HORSE AND CARRIAGE LIVERY SERVICES) |
In these Minneapolis, Minnesota ordinances, a stable or assembly/transfer facility is used exclusively for the purposes of keeping horses used in a licensed horse and carriage livery service. Any horse kept in a stable or an assembly/transfer facility must be registered with the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services and must meet the standards of a veterinary examination and certification. Requirements for the construction and operations of a stable or assembly/transfer facility are also provided, as are the provisions for the operations of a horse and carriage livery service.
|
|
MO - Equine Activity Liability - 537.325. Definitions--liability for equine or livestock |
This Missouri statute provides that an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional or any other person shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities and no participant shall make maintain an action against an equine operator. Statutory definitions are provided, including "participant," "inherent risk," and who is considered an "equine sponsor" or "equine professional." The term "engages in an equine activity" does not include being a spectator at an equine activity, except in cases where the spectator places him or herself in an unauthorized area. The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law. |
|
Montgomery v. Lester |
In this case, the Lesters appealed the judgment of the trial court awarding the Montgomerys $200,000 for the injury and death of their thoroughbred house that was caused by the Lester’s dog. The Lester’s dog chased after and barked at the horse, causing the horse to attempt to climb a fence which severely injured the horsed. The injuries were so severe that the horse was later euthanized. The Montgomerys filed suit against the Lesters and awarded $200,000 in damages. On appeal, the Lesters argued that the claims filed by the Montgomerys should be dismissed because they have “no personal right to claim the damages asserted” because “the registered owner of the horse at issue was Montgomery Equine Center, LLC and not the [Montgomerys].”The court reviewed the issue and determined that the Montgomerys were entitled to damages because they were the rightful owners of the horse. The court held that “registration of a horse does not prove ownership under Louisiana Law.” As a result, the court found that although the horse was registered to the Montgomery Equine Center, the Montgomerys were still the owners of the horse and therefore entitled to the damages that were awarded by the trial court judge. |
|
Moreland v. Lowdermilk |
This case concerns the untimely death of a female racehorse, whose owners brought this veterinary malpractice action against the veterinarians that treated this mare. Her owners sought reimbursement for her future potential racing earnings, her future potential earnings as a brood mare, and recovery of monies owed for veterinary services rendered. However, the court held that the sole cause of the condition that led to the mare's death was the owner's failure to administer a proper worming program to the mare, not the actions of the veterinarians. The court held that the veterinarians could not have administered treatment to save the mare, and therefore had not committed malpractice. |
|
Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Hodel |
Horses protected by the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act are not instruments of the federal government, and therefore incursions by wild horses onto private land do not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking requiring just compensation.
|
|
MS - Equine Activity Liability - Chapter 11. Liability Exemption for Livestock Shows and Equine Activities |
This Mississippi statute embodies the the intent of the Legislature to encourage equine and livestock activities by limiting the civil liability of those involved in such activities. Liability is not limited by this statute where the equine professional knowingly provided faulty tack or equipment, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine or livestock activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a known, dangerous latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law. |
|
MT - Equine Activity Liability - Chapter 1. Availability of Remedies--Liability. |
The Montana equine activity liability act provides that it is the policy of the state of Montana that a person is not liable for damages sustained by another solely as a result of risks inherent in equine activities if those risks are or should be reasonably obvious, expected, or necessary to persons engaged in equine activities. Liability is not limited by this statute where the equine professional knowingly provided faulty tack or equipment, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a known, dangerous latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. |
