Again, how does it help those of us with out a back pocket lawyer to read the legal writings that make no sense to anyone but a lawyer?
2 Likes
We have those in our state, too. One of OPâs worries is that while prior case law has generally found for visitors to a barn to be categorized as âparticipantsâ, the same is not true of spectators, unless they have entered an âunauthorized areaâ. What Iâm wondering is if there is a possibility of all members of the general public entering KHP & wandering up to watch the show in question might in fact be classifiable as visitors to a horse facility & thus âparticipantsâ & not âspectatorsâ? In that case, they would be considered to have waived their right to collect damages under the state equine liability statute. KHP isnât your typical show venue in many ways; as far as I know, you cannot enter the park without some sort of paid, general admission ticket or exhibitorâs pass. Entry to some of the exhibit barns is part of admission & all barns & arenas on the property have signs prominently posted reminding you that you are assuming liability to enter under the applicable KY statute.
Hope Iâm making sense! Have a cold & my brain feels fuzzy today 
1 Like
I"m not sure that a discussion about the possible most extreme outcome is as helpful to the rest of us as it is to you. I realize that many lawyers enjoy doing this, because itâs fun for them, but for the rest of us, who donât live like this, itâs just running in the weeds.
For me at least, itâs not all that productive to worry that by just being at a horse show I can be compelled to foot the bill for someone falling off their horse because the gate steward took off their jacket.
FYI, you may be encouraging people to not read releases closely if they donât see the language specific to this releaseâŠ
5 Likes
I do not sign anything without reading it. All of it. I do not have my retired lawyer husband read it for me. I am more than capable of figuring it out. It is in English. It does not read like a novel, but it is always decipherable to the point of knowing whether I should sign it or not. Sometimes, I still sign it because they have a monopoly and I want whatever service they are providing.
You can also cross out terms you do not agree to. They may not accept it, but they now know people read them and are not willing to sign all of their rights away. If you truly cannot read it, make the entity asking you to sign pay their lawyers to explain it in simple terms or give you a real world example.
1 Like
This will be my last post on this subject because I see that the discussion is going off the edge of the road.
This sounds like a classic case of attacking the messenger instead of the message. Could you have made your point without calling me ânaĂŻveâ (yes, you qualified it that âsome would sayâ but no one actually said that â you did). I never said there are not crazy people out there that would purposely hurt themselves to get at insurance. There are crazy people that do all sorts of things. I was addressing your argument that a show would not reveal that they were insured for fear of people throwing themselves in front of horses to get at the insurance. While there may be an example or two out there, we all know that automobiles are required to be insured and yet we do not see all these people throwing themselves in front of cars. An imperfect analogy but still applicable. Just because people know an entity is insured does not mean they will purposefully injury themselves to get at that insurance.
In the hypothetical âsurvivorshipâ lawsuit, the parents would not be suing for compensation for the loss of what they could expect to receive from the child. That would not be a âsurvivorshipâ action. That would be their own action. A survivorship action is a claim brought by the executor of the decedentâs estate on behalf of the decedent and is focused more on the damages suffered by the deceased person rather than the parents. What damages could the child claim? Well, the value of their life. How does one value a life? Well, part of the value of oneâs life is the money they would have earned had they survived. Hence, the lost compensation for the childâs potential career up to potentially their life expectancy. Yes, some states may pass legislation to limit the speculative nature of this calculation by using âstandard compensation calculations tablesâ. But not all. But not Kentucky where the horse show takes place. Again, you are raising all sorts of assumptions to justify entering into a contract that is either vague (to some) or overreaching (if not vague).
If indeed the indemnity clause is so $%#%^ vague that it benefits everyone, then the question is, why would anyone sign a contract that is vague?? You donât have to be a lawyer to read and understand the plain language of the agreement. You agree to âindemnifyâ the show for âany and all claimsâ from any âcause whatsoeverâ. What is so vague about the words âanyâ, âallâ, and âwhatsoeverâ? Now, you can twist and turn and wiggle and come up with all sorts of alternative theories â they have insurance, 1 in a billion chance, blah, blah, blah â I get that. But these are after-the-fact justifications for signing a contract that is vague. If nothing else, everyone on this forum should now know exactly what they are agreeing to when they see the word âindemnifyâ. That alone will have made this discussion worth it. As for my DH, in his area of practice where he counsels equine businesses, he is a defense attorney. So much for the hammer and nail analogy. But, again, this misses the pointâŠ.
Now that I know they are insured, I am going to attend the next show and throw myself in front of the first horse I come across, at least up to the point of $1 million worth of injury. 
KHP does not require a general waiver or release upon entry. We have entered the Kentucky Horse Park many times, including during large shows, without signing or agreeing to anything. You can say âIâm going to the Secretariat Center to look at adopting a horseâ and youâll be waved right through. The KHP, which is owned by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, if it was liable for anything, would be limited to any liability up to only $250,000. KRS 49.040.
Extreme hypotheticals are used to illustrate a point. In this case, the extreme, 1 in a billion chance event was used to illustrate how all-inclusive, all-encompassing, unlimited the indemnity clause was. The point was not about whether it was likely or unlikely to happen, whether insurance would cover it, whether the equine limited liability act would be in play, without some judge would enforce it, etc. Nor does it show that Iâm ârisk averseâ. If I was truly risk averse I would not ride horses much less jump them over fences. If the indemnity clause had made you agree to âguaranteeâ any damages incurred as a result of âany Act of Godâ, would you sign it? Sure, you could argue all day that, well, a lightening strike is not really an Act of God. Or that a runaway horse is not an Act of God because God doesnât ride horses as far as you know. The responses and after-the-fact-justifications could get as ridiculous as the hypothetical. But the point would have been, Did you read it? If so, did you understand how all-inclusive an âAct of Godâ would be? Did you mean to agree to that? If not, why did you sign it? Are there alternatives, like complaining to show management?
Perhaps I can come up with a more realistic hypothetical so weâre not lost in the weeds. Person A signs up to participate in the show and signs a release and all-encompassing, unlimited indemnity clause. Person A brings her minor child on whose behalf, under Kentucky law, Person A cannot agree to release any potential claims because she is a minor. Minor child is sitting in the bleachers watching her mom enter the ring when she is injured somehow. How just doesnât matter. The bleacher falls in, she trips and breaks her ankle, whatever. Minor childâs father, who is divorced from Person A, sues on minor childâs behalf and wins. Show then sends a demand letter to Person A to indemnify them for the loss reminding her that she agreed to indemnify against âany and allâ claims of any âcause whatsoeverâ. The end result is that Person A ends up paying for her own childâs injury. Now, donât get lost in the hypothetical weeds. The point is to illustrate how ridiculous an all-inclusive, unlimited indemnity clause can be.
So, in conclusion â Do you read these agreements? If so, do you understand them completely? If not, or you feel it is vague, then donât sign them. Ask the show sponsor to explain it, strike out the vague sentence then sign it. But do something. As Snowdenfarm pointed out, if enough people complained about the ridiculousness of an indemnity clause without limits or how vague the agreement is, the show would have to change it. Maybe my original email to the show secretary, where she said she forwarded my concerns to their lawyers, will effect a change and all this will have been nothing more than an academic what-if discussion. But then thatâs the point â complaining brings about change. Thank you to everyone who provided their thoughts. It was an interesting discussion.
1 Like
A side note, when the dog club used our arena for a show, their insurance send a notice that we were co-insured with their insurance for those two days.
That is standard for dog clubs and any other that uses someone elseâs venue for their shows.
If a horse show is managed by a different company than the one that manages the grounds, they would have such a co-insurance contract.
As for liability releases and asking participants that use the facilities and that show?
We have those, but were advised that if someone has a claim, the insurances will be the ones taking care of settling or going to court and those signed releases were easy to shoot down by any sensible attorney, as negligence lawsuits have special rights for the ones injured that canât be signed away.
Now, other attorneys may have a different way to make them useful, so ask one before deciding what to sign or not.
2 Likes
Absolutely. I looked at the entire release & compared it to those of a few other large equestrian organizations, including the USHJA. Virtually identical wording with no material difference in the language that I, a layperson with a graduate degree in technical writing, could discern. And taken in the context of the entire release, it is apparent (again, in my laypersonâs reading comprehension) that it pertains to the rights of the individual participant signing to sue the organizer. The Pony Clubâs release I thought was nutty. But Iâve had a grudge against Pony Club since I was a kid & you had to own a horse to participate. So I might be biased 
Also found a major typo in the Schooling release for Land Rover â a 1 page document. How they missed that, I donât know!
@ParadoxFarm, I personally encountered a situation recently with a show lease where there was a clause pertaining to responsibility to return the horse to show condition should it sustain an accidental injury in our care. (Non-negligent) The language essentially handed the owners a blank check for the life of the horse. I brought it up with our trainer, who ran it by both a relative who is an attorney & the owner of our barn, who regularly leases out show horses of a higher calibre than the one in question. Both agreed my concern was valid. Trainer then brought it up to the ownerâs trainer, who apparently responded that we must not have the means to lease the horse & goodbye.
The initial draft of the lease for the horse we ended up going with actually contained a similar clause. Less open-ended wording, but still nothing I was inclined ti agree to. Ran it by my boss, who said he wouldnât sign it with that clause in their, either. Trainer once again talked to the owner (in this case, a professional trainer themselves). âNo problem, we can change that.â And they did. With lease #2 I was prepared for the possibility of that language being standard for a show lease & made up my mind we would buy instead if that were the case.
Now, another family at our barn also leased a horse from the same barn. One of the parents in that family, though not a lawyer, âreads contracts all dayâ as part of their job. They were either totally unbothered by the language of the clause. Or didnât read it or have much deeper pockets than me. They donât ride, so it is also possible they donât fully understand how prone horses are to having bizarre, costly accidents. So, I understand your position on this. You have to make the decision that aligns with your comfort level.
Eta: The ad for the first horse is back up. Seems no one has the financial means to agree to the trainerâs gambitâŠ
1 Like
With all these lawyer husbands knocking about, yâall should know this is no solution. They will just reject your entry form. This is not how large organizations/corporations operate. They donât need you as much as you need them.
@ParadoxFarm, pointing out that people should read waiver forms is useful. As @trubandloki points out, though, itâs of limited utility if the waivers arenât written in plain English. But I think the reason you think this discussion is going off the rails is because people are disagreeing with your risk assessment for this specific waiver. Some of us think it does not say what you (and your husband) think it says. Other of us think that itâs not enforceable. And some of us think it does not really matter because it is a âone in a billionâ chance risk, and thatâs not worth missing out on a âbucket listâ show that you have planned to attend for many months, at least.
Thatâs a tough spot to be in. I understand what itâs like to see risk where others donât (thatâs why I get paid âthe big bucksâ - except I donât). But maybe, in this situation, take a beat. Talk to a lawyer who is not your husband OR a stranger on the Internet. An objective opinion might help you reassess your decision, or at least not regret it later.
Just my uninformed two cents. Again, not legal advice!
7 Likes
I do read all the releases, privacy policies and contracts fully when I have to sign. Some I sign, some I donât. That one I would likely sign, because I donât know of a situation where a true third party unrelated to the injury can be compelled to pay for such a distant action. Thatâs not to say some enterprising insurance company wonât try, though (Iâm looking at you, TheDBYC 
)
3 Likes
I think we should date, or at least be friends.
1 Like
Not to be that person, but this probably isnât the best example. Family law introduces a host of additional complexities. Regardless, Iâm guessing that the childâs age would also play into it. Leaving my 6yo alone in the bleachers at KHP while Iâm competing is a lot different than leaving my 16yo.
Iâll ask you this, though. Set aside the child of divorced parents bit. This is a realistic scenario that
no doubt happens 100âs of times a year across the US. Do you know of anyone who has received a demand letter from a show they participated in?
3 Likes
Iâm guessing this is ultimately the answer. The specifics donât matter; it comes down to the injured partyâs insurance company paying & then asking the other parties companies to pay them if there is a basis for it. Same as if my best friend slips & breaks her neck on my front stoop. She has no say in whether or not her insurance company sues me.
1 Like
