Equine Liability

Displaying 41 - 50 of 103
Titlesort descending Summary
Kangas v. Perry


Plaintiff, a passenger of a horse-drawn sled sued the owner of the property on which the accident occurred, as well as the owner of the horses and the sled for the injuries she suffered when thrown from the sled.

 

The Court of Appeals found that the equine immunity statute provided protection for the owner of the horse against tort liability.

 

The plain language of the statute provides that immunity from civil liability is available

to all persons

, “

including

an equine activity sponsor or equine professional…”; thus, protection is not limited only to those who are sponsors or professionals, rather they are examples of types of people to whom the statute applies.
Kinara v. Jamaica Bay Riding Academy, Inc.


Plaintiff was kicked by a horse ridden by her friend while trail riding.  Plaintiff sued the Defendant who owned the horse and trail Plaintiff was riding on.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision holding Plaintiff assumed the risk.
King v. CJM Country Stables


Horseback rider was bitten during a trail ride and brought suit in personal injury.  After removal to Federal Court, the Court held that Hawaii's recreational activity liability statute was applicable and that summary judgment was not appropriate.  Motion for summary judgment denied.
Kovnat v. Xanterra Parks and Resorts

In this case, Corrine Kovnat filed suit against Xanterra Parks and Resorts (Xanterra) alleging that it was negligent in connection with the injuries she sustained while horseback riding in Yellowstone National Park. Kovnat argued that Xanterra was negligent because the cinch on the saddle was too loose and her stirrups were uneven. The district court reviewed the issue and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, Xanterra. The court held that under Wyoming’s Recreational Safety Act, Xanterra owed no duty of care to protect Kovnat from the injuries she sustained. Kovnat appealed the district court’s ruling and the court of appeals affirmed in part and denied in part the district court’s ruling. Ultimately, the court of appeals found that summary judgment was only proper for Kovnat’s claim regarding the loose cinch but was not proper for the issue of the uneven stirrups. The court of appeals came to this conclusion after examining the Recreational Safety Act and finding that Xanterra cannot be held liable for any risks that are “inherent to the sport of horseback riding.” The court determined that the loose cinch was a reasonable risk that was inherent to the sport of horseback riding while the uneven stirrups were not. For this reason, the court of appeals remanded the case for further proceedings with regard to the issue of the uneven stirrups.
KS - Equine Activity Liability - Article 40. Assumption of Risk of Domestic Animal Activity. This Kansas statute provides that any participant in domestic animal activities assumes the inherent risks of when such participant engages in a domestic animal activity. This limitation of liability operates legally as an affirmative defense of assumption of risk pleaded by the domestic animal activity sponsor or domestic animal professional. The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law and any written contract must provide explicit language outlined in the statute.
Kush v. Wentworth


Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for violation of the Animal Control Act and alleged negligence due to the broken leg that the Plaintiff suffered after she was kicked by Defendant’s horse while trying to pass the horse on a group ride.

 

At the time of the accident, the defendant was neither an “equine activity sponsor” nor an “equine professional” according to the Act.

 

The issue was whether the Act applied only to those two groups of people, and the court held that the Act

does not

preclude negligence liability for persons other than equine activity sponsors and equine professionals.
KY - Equine Activity Liability Statute - Chapter 247. Promotion of Agriculture and Horticulture. Farm Animal Activities. This Kentucky statute embodies the the legislative intent to encourage farm animal activities activities by limiting the civil liability of those involved in such activities. Statutory definitions are provided, including "inherent risks of farm animal activities" and "engages in farm animal activity." The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law. Failure to comply with the requirements concerning warning signs and notices provided in this section shall prevent a farm animal activity sponsor or farm animal professional from invoking the provisions of KRS 247.401 to 247.4029.
LA - Equine Activity Liability - § 2795.1. Limitation of liability of farm animal activity The Louisiana law regarding equine activity liability is divided into two sections; one related to "farm animal activity" and one specific to "equine activity sponsors." Both statutes have identical terms, save for the animal to which the statute pertains. Under both, engaging in the farm animal or equine activity does not include being a spectator at a farm animal activity, except in cases where the spectator places himself in an unauthorized area and in immediate proximity to the farm animal or equine activity. The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law and any written contracts must include the statutory language provided. Failure to comply with the requirements concerning warning notices provided prevents a farm animal activity sponsor or equine sponsor from invoking the privilege of immunity provided by this section.
Lessman v. Rhodes


Plaintiff, a participant in a horse show, was injured when a stallion bucked and kicked him; he sued the show’s sponsor, and the stallion’s rider and owner alleging negligent and willful and wanton misconduct, by failing to conduct background checks into the horses and by failing to separate the stallions participating in the show,

inter alia

.

 

The Equine Activity Liability Act, which was established to shield those persons who participate in equine activities from liability, provides an exception to the general rule by permitting liability for equine activity sponsors that commit “an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, and that act or omission caused the injury.”

 

In this case, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that showed that the defendants behaved in a reckless or intentional manner, therefore the summary judgment in favor of the defendant entered by the trial court was founded to be proper.
List of Equine Activity Liability (EALA) Statutes


This document provides a list of several state Equine Activity Liability Act statutes (currently, 44 states have adopted such statutes). A link to each individual statute is also provide.

Pages