|
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 - 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. |
|
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.
|
|
Applbaum v. Golden Acres Farm and Ranch |
Minor child fell off of a horse while horseback riding at a resort ranch and sustained severe injuries. Parents of the minor child brought a personal injury claim against the stable and the stable moved for summary judgment. The trial court precluded summary judgment due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact relating the parent's assumption of the risk.
|
|
AR - Equine - Equine Activity Liability |
This Arkansas statute provides that an equine activity sponsor, an employee of an equine activity sponsor, a livestock sponsor, an employee of a livestock sponsor, a livestock owner, a livestock facility, or a livestock auction market are not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of an equine activities activity or a livestock activity. Liability is not limited when the equine activity sponsor or an employee of an equine activity sponsor, a livestock sponsor, an employee of a livestock sponsor, a livestock owner, a livestock facility, or a livestock auction market knows or should know the equipment or tack is faulty, fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant, was aware of dangerous latent condition on the land, commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, or when the participant is intentionally injured. Warning signs alerting participants to the assumption of risk in equine activities are also required by law. |
|
AZ - Equine Activity Liability Statute |
This Arizona statute provides that an equine agent or owner is not liable for injury if the participant took control of the equine prior to injury, if a parent or guardian signed a release on behalf of a minor, if the owner or agent has properly installed suitable tack or the participant has personally tacked the equine, or the owner or agent assigns a suitable equine based on a reasonable interpretation of the person's representation of his or her skills, health and experience with and knowledge of equines. Liability is not limited, however, when an equine owner or agent is grossly negligent or commits willful, wanton or intentional acts or omissions. |
|
Baker v. McIntosh |
Visitor to horse farm brought action for negligence when he was injured by owners colt. Held: the owner had no duty to prevent the colt from falling against the trailer door, nor did he have a duty to warn the visitor of the potential for such an accident to occur.
|
|
Balen v. Peltier (NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED AS UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY MINN. ST. SEC. 480A.08(3). |
Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries she received after being thrown from defendant’s horse. Specifically, plaintiff argued that defendant knew or should have known of the horse’s “hazardous propensities” and therefore had a duty to protect plaintiff. In finding that there existed no special relationship between the parties to impart a duty to defendant, defendant’s motion for summary judgment was affirmed.
|
|
Beckwith v. Weber |
While on vacation at a ranch in Wyoming, plaintiff was thrown or fell from a horse that stepped in a large badger hole. Allegedly, the trail guide left the plaintiff and her husband at the scene in order to get help. Worried about potential wildlife attacks, the plaintiff and her husband walked to a nearby residence for assistance. The plaintiff later brought a negligence suit against the ranch for injuries she had sustained during the fall. At trial, the jury verdict stated the plaintiff had assumed the risk and the plaintiff was therefore not entitled to damages. On appeal, the plaintiff challenged a jury instruction and asserted the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded costs to the ranch. The plaintiff did not prevail on either claim.
|
