Horse behavior and liability

[danacat]

Way back when – when I owned/managed my TBred training farm – my commercial liability policy covered ‘injury’ etc. to all who came onto the farm – invited or not. This type of policy covered everything unless ‘negligence’ could be proved.

So… besides the ‘Enter at Your Own Risk’ & ‘Horses are Dangerous’ signs (for all the good those would do) I always placed an orange traffic cone in the aisle in front of the biter/lunger stalls to remind everyone to give those horses a wide berth. As in all racing barns (especially at the racetrack) horses are never locked in behind bars/closed doors. Thus traffic cones (or some other reminder) dot the aisles where needed…

…or yoked stall screens are used instead of webbings – placed extra high so horse could still look out but couldn’t lunge and grab someone. The screens limited the horse’s reach.

But since negilence is sometimes subjective, a court battle could occurr even with a liabilty policy…and as lep said, this is where equine immunity statutes become important.

[findeight]

@lep

As others said, it depends on whether your state has an equine immunity statute and how it’s written. It could be such that no one will be liable. In other words, you basically assume the risk of getting hurt by a horse being a horse, i.e, unpredictable and with a propensity to cause injury (or death) to those on and around them (to paraphrase a portion of my state’s law). I’m handling a case with similar facts now (pony bit a woman who had come on the property solely to feed the school horses treats…the bite occurred when the woman dropped the carrot, and she and the pony reached for it at the same time…). We’re waiting to see what the state supreme court has to say about the applicability of the immunity statute to these facts.

Thats a little different…more of the attractive nuisance enticing an idiot to put themselves in a vulnerable situation, Interesting to see how that goes. I’m speaking in terms of a public boarding barn where boarders, their guests and prospective clients visiting the barn to evaluate it might get bit just walking down the aisle. It’s not like the backside of a racetrack with restricted access, it’s accessible to complete novices and, as a teaching barn if they give lessons? Have to keep in mind a clueless novice may assume it’s safe to walk down the barn aisle to see the horses or even the not so novice unaware of the risk of walking in front of those stalls.

Bottom line, you’ll still need to get a lawyer even if they lose. And might get stuck with the medical bill as my trainers have, in 4 states. 3 with equine liability statutes,

[lep]

I know that the MI immunity statute includes “visiting stables” (or something to that effect) as an equine activity so that the barn owner (and horse owner) should not be held liable if damages occur while someone is visiting a barn. But yes, immunity statutes do NOT stop people from suing, and once someone is sued, he/she has to find a lawyer. That’s where proper insurance comes into play. If the insurance covers the claim, the insurer will pay for the legal fees and any potential judgment/settlement. And let’s be honest, juries often don’t care what a law actually says…so once suit is filed, there is no guarantee what will happen even if your state’s immunity statute seems to be airtight.

[dkcbr]

Stating the obvious, too, that a horse doesn’t even have to be a biter to cause real injury. It’s not uncommon to see several horses lean out suddenly, and/or shake their heads in a way that could be construed as a threat, etc., resulting in the horse being led feeling threatened and spooking sideways or forward. I’m sure many a handler has been knocked into or stepped on that way. Even horses who are friendly can invade the space of a horse being led past its stall.

I am one who also hates to have to lead a horse down an aisle that isn’t wide enough to completely avoid any of this, but sometimes barns are arranged so that there isn’t much choice. I don’t quite understand why barn owners/managers don’t insist on stall screens or higher cut dutch doors or something along those lines, even when there aren’t bars. One of my most recent barns had every stall equipped with dutch doors, front and back, plus yoked screens that horses could poke their heads over but high enough it wasn’t a lunge situation. It was perfect!

So many ways to cause injuries around horses. But this lunging over the stall door business is so easy to prevent. (And I personally wouldn’t just depend on people whacking those horses. That lesson isn’t always applied correctly, nor does it always stick.)

And don’t get me started on horses being able to stick their heads out with CROSS TIES being used in the aisle as well. Gaaah!

[Guilherme]

The limited liability statutes I’ve seen generally protect “equine professionals” from some liability exposure with horses. This means that you must be an “equine professional” to be covered under the statute. And you’re protected from claims of ordinary negligence that might flow from a mis-feasance that flows from the normal and routine risks of riding or handling horses (and in some places mules).

Ordinary owners are generally not protected. Nor is there any protection from gross negligence or wilful, wanton, or reckless misconduct. And never for intentional misconduct.

The protection is real; so is the narrow scope of the protection.

Keeping a horse that is known to be a biter or kicker pushes the limits of the protection. If the horse is an aggressive biter or kicker then it would not be too hard for a good lawyer to plead, and maybe prove, that keeping such an animal and not preventing contact with the general public would be grossly negligent.

A person with this problem would be wise to know the law in their own state.

G.

[lep]

The ones I’ve seen generally do protect the ordinary horse owner. My state’s statute, which is similar to most of the ones out there, applies to protect “an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person, which shall include a corporation or partnership,” from liability arising over the inherent risks of equine activity with some enumerated exceptions. “Any other person” can be a horse owner or even a non-horse owner helping out in an equine activity. So, think of the good samaritan at a show (or a boarding barn, or wherever) who offers to help with a horse who is having loading issues, and then someone gets injured. The good samaritan would qualify as “any other person.”

The key is that professionals and sponsors have to have the required warning signs up, “other persons” do not. Of course questions arise over what is an inherent risk, what is an equine activity (for example, I had a plaintiff argue one time that she was not riding a horse when she was injured, she was trying a saddle - while it was on the horse - so she said she was not participating in an equine activity), and if any of the exceptions apply.

Also, horses are basically presumed to be dangerous, under my state’s law anyway. They are deemed to have a “propensity . . . to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm, or death to persons on or around them.” They are also deemed to be unpredictable. So, to paraphrase one of our state supreme court justices in oral argument, horses are dangerous, so it doesn’t really matter if a horse is a known kicker or biter. Even if a horse has never kicked or bitten before, that doesn’t mean that it won’t kick or bite that one time. The law is designed to place the risk on people who chose to interact with horses.

This being said, I completely agree that if you have a horse with a history of biting or kicking, etc., take all precautions to keep those around him/her safe. No one wants his or her horse to injure another, and no one wants to be sued, either.

[crosscreeksh]

@danacat

Way back when – when I owned/managed my TBred training farm – my commercial liability policy covered ‘injury’ etc. to all who came onto the farm – invited or not. This type of policy covered everything unless ‘negligence’ could be proved.

So… besides the ‘Enter at Your Own Risk’ & ‘Horses are Dangerous’ signs (for all the good those would do) I always placed an orange traffic cone in the aisle in front of the biter/lunger stalls to remind everyone to give those horses a wide berth. As in all racing barns (especially at the racetrack) horses are never locked in behind bars/closed doors. Thus traffic cones (or some other reminder) dot the aisles where needed…

…or yoked stall screens are used instead of webbings – placed extra high so horse could still look out but couldn’t lunge and grab someone. The screens limited the horse’s reach.

But since negilence is sometimes subjective, a court battle could occurr even with a liabilty policy…and as lep said, this is where equine immunity statutes become important.

We were training on the TB track for years. When we had a “really” nasty biter…we put up a full door “stud screen”. People who work on the track are usually prepared for attacks as they walk the shed row…in a riding horse barn…probably fewer visitors expect to get eaten!! We had one good race gelding who was a savage…I put a big sign on the front of his stall saying, “STAY BACK…I BITE!!!” Still some idiots would stand in front of his stall and tease him!!

[danacat]

@crosscreeksh

People who work on the track are usually prepared for attacks as they walk the shed row…

Very true! In barns that house multiple trainers, or barns where trainers & their owners do a lot of claiming, you really don’t know the habits of all the horses that come in – and neither do the trainers – until someone gets nailed. So you pretty much have to be on your toes all the time!

In a riding horse boarding barn – since horses stick around for a while, and owners and BO’s know their horses – there really is no excuse for allowing someone to get eaten.

[Guilherme]

@lep

The ones I’ve seen generally do protect the ordinary horse owner. My state’s statute, which is similar to most of the ones out there, applies to protect “an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person, which shall include a corporation or partnership,” from liability arising over the inherent risks of equine activity with some enumerated exceptions. “Any other person” can be a horse owner or even a non-horse owner helping out in an equine activity. So, think of the good samaritan at a show (or a boarding barn, or wherever) who offers to help with a horse who is having loading issues, and then someone gets injured. The good samaritan would qualify as “any other person.”

The key is that professionals and sponsors have to have the required warning signs up, “other persons” do not. Of course questions arise over what is an inherent risk, what is an equine activity (for example, I had a plaintiff argue one time that she was not riding a horse when she was injured, she was trying a saddle - while it was on the horse - so she said she was not participating in an equine activity), and if any of the exceptions apply.

Also, horses are basically presumed to be dangerous, under my state’s law anyway. They are deemed to have a “propensity . . . to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm, or death to persons on or around them.” They are also deemed to be unpredictable. So, to paraphrase one of our state supreme court justices in oral argument, horses are dangerous, so it doesn’t really matter if a horse is a known kicker or biter. Even if a horse has never kicked or bitten before, that doesn’t mean that it won’t kick or bite that one time. The law is designed to place the risk on people who chose to interact with horses.

This being said, I completely agree that if you have a horse with a history of biting or kicking, etc., take all precautions to keep those around him/her safe. No one wants his or her horse to injure another, and no one wants to be sued, either.

My observation is different on who’s protected. But here’s one reference where a “quick and dirty” look at any one state can be had:

http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/equine/equ_menu.htm

Even if there is potential liability protection under a statute such must be plead and proved in a hearing. That means a lawyer and that means cost. So in any event ensure that you have appropriate personal liability coverage for your state and risk profile.

G.

[lep]

I’m an attorney and am fully familiar with, have written on, and have litigated my state’s statute. I can cite you the cases if need be that make it clear that the statute applies to regular horse owners, and even non-horse owners if they are a participant in an equine activity (this would include vets and farriers), not just professionals and sponsors. My state’s law requires pros and sponsors to have certain signage on the property and certain language in contracts. Regular horse owners do not have to have the signage. I’ve litigated that portion of our statute, too.

Edited to add that this case makes it clear that our statute protects horse owners, not just professionals and sponsors. https://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cases/laws/gautreau.htm

[Guilherme]

@lep

I’m an attorney and am fully familiar with, have written on, and have litigated my state’s statute. I can cite you the cases if need be that make it clear that the statute applies to regular horse owners, and even non-horse owners if they are a participant in an equine activity (this would include vets and farriers), not just professionals and sponsors. My state’s law requires pros and sponsors to have certain signage on the property and certain language in contracts. Regular horse owners do not have to have the signage. I’ve litigated that portion of our statute, too.

I’m retired from the Texas Bar so I’m not completely current. That’s why I posted the link I did. This is highly localized and local law must be considered.

And your best protection is still intelligent management of risk and a good insurance policy.

G.

[lep]

Agree, and the link you posted does not even actually have the correct statute for LA. That site quotes the “farm animal” statute, not the equine statute. I believe I emailed the site administrator years ago to let him/her know that the LA statute is incorrect, but I guess it was never changed.