« Back to Case Topics
Tort Liability
Allis v. Turner, 1999 WL 184576 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.).
A string cite on the doctrine that "horses do not generally wander unattended on public streets in the absence of negligence."
B & B Livery, Inc. v. Riehl, 960 P.2d 134 (Colo. 1998).
A broad reading is given to a release clause, beyond the statutory limited liability of a horse professional.
Blose v. Mactier, 562 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. 1997).
Farrier was injured when trying to catch a horse and sued the owner of the horse for negligence. The trial court rendered a directed verdict for the horse owner. Because there was no evidence that the owner knew more than the farrier about the horse's dangerous propensities, the Supreme Court of Nebraska upheld the directed verdict.
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 965 P.2d 47 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 1998).
A strict construction of a common statute limiting the liability of horse owners.
Campbell v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co., 99 N.W. 1061 (Iowa 1904).
Plaintiff sued railway when mare caught in cattle guard was killed by a passing train. The court ruled that the proper measure of damages was the value of the animal killed, as proven by the character of the foals that had been produced by her, rather than the average value of the plaintiff's stock.
Cooperman v. David, 23 F.Supp. 2d 1315 (D. Wyo. 1998).
Interpretation of a statute limiting the liability of a horse owner, turning on whether or not the plaintiff assumed an "inherent risk."
Daigrepont v. State, 688 So.2d 1290 (La. App. 1997).
Jockey injured in collision on racetrack sued stewards on theory that stewards were negligent in not previously removing an allegedly reckless jockey who caused the accident. The jockey was also an immigrant working without a green card. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that although the stewards owed a duty to keep the track safe for jockeys, there was insufficient evidence that they were negligent in this instance. The court also held that there was no duty to remove a jockey because the jockey was illegally working.
DeGraff v. Wright, 944 P.2d 712 (Idaho 1997).
Horesback rider was injured when dog chased the horse she was riding. She sued the owners of the dog, but the jury found that the rider had trespassed on the dog-owner's property, and thus a judgment was entered against the rider. The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the decision because the trial court did not instruct the jury on the proper duty of an owner to a trespasser.
Douglass v. Dolan, 675 N.E.2d 1012 (Ill. App. 1997).
Motorcycle collided with a horse that escaped off land onto a public road. The injured motorcycle rider sued the landowner, the owners of the horse, and one who sold the horse to the current owners on an installment basis. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the landowner and the installment seller and the appeals court affirmed. The court held that the landowner had no duty to keep the horse from escaping. The court also held that the installment seller was not an owner of the horse so as subject him to liability.
Egan v. Cauble, 966 P.2d 363 (Wash. 1998).
It is a jury question as to whether an injured person assumed the specific risks associated with the use of a horse.
Faul v. Trahan, 718 So.2d 1081 (L. App. 3 Cir. 1998).
The Court upholds the constitutionality of an Equine Immunity Statute.
Filson v. Cold River Trail Rides, Inc., 661 N.Y.S.2d 841 (App. Div. 1997).
Participant in a horseback riding excursion was injured while attempting to mount her horse. She sued operator of the excursion for negligence, claiming it failed to provide a suitable horse. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis of a release signed by the participant prior to participating. The Appellate Division held that the release was unenforceable and void under a New York statute, and upheld the denial of summary judgment.
Ford v. Bynum Lvestock and Comm'n Co., 674 So. 2d 600 (Ala. 1995).
Experiences horseman was injured in sales ring and sued for damages. The trial court granted summary judgment to the sales company, but the court of appeals reversed on the basis that whether a danger was open and obvious is a question of fact to be decided by the jury.
Freskos v. City of New York, 663 N.Y.S.2d 174 (App. Div. 1997).
Experienced equestrian was injured when her horse was spooked when she was riding through Central Park. She sued city for failure to construct a fence segregating the bridle path from the road. The Appellate Division ruled that the city could not be liable because the plaintiff assumed the risk of potential injury.
|
|
|
Gibbs v. Jackson, 959 S.W. 2d 668 (Tex. App. 1997).
An automobile collided with a horse that had somehow escaped its pasture, and the driver of the automobile sued the owner of the horse for negligence. The jury issued a verdict in favor of the driver. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas held that an owner of livestock has a duty to keep his domestic livestock from roaming onto public roads.
Gibbs v. Jackson, 1999 WL 188054 (Tex.).
A careful analysis, citing conflicting prior opinions, about the common law duty to make certain that animals do not stray from the field, including the importance of related statutory enactments.
Hallstrom v. Ammerman, 113 F.2d 872 (8th Cir. 1997).
Thirteen-year old girl was thrown from a horse and sued horse owner for negligence. The trial court gave an assumption of the risk instruction and a verdict was returned for the owner. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the assumption of the risk instruction should not have been given because the girl's inexperience precluded her from knowing the risk.
Hill v. Harris, 1998 WL 960763 (Del. Super.).
An analysis of whether a particular individual was a partner in a riding stable, for the purpose of holding her liable for a negligent injury to a rider.
Huprich v. Bitto, 667 So.2d 685, 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 526 (Ala. 1995).
Arabian horse owner sued seller and manufacturer of corn feed following the death of several horses from a toxin created by a fungus on the corn. The seller, a farmer, was held not to be a "merchant," thus implied warranty did not apply. The manufacturer was likewise exculpated because it could not be shown that he knew of the presence of the fungus or that it would create the toxin.
Irish v. Deep Hollow Ltd., 671 N.Y. Supp. 2d 1023 (1998).
There is no assumption of the risk of intentional or reckless behavior.
Johnson v. Waugh, 663 N.Y.S.2d 928 (App. Div. 1997).
Dump truck driver sued owners of standardbred race horse when his truck collided with the horse, which had escaped from a nearby farm while being unloaded. The jury found in favor of the truck driver, but the Appellate Division reversed because there was no evidence that the owner that was unloading the horse acted inconsistently with industry practice.
Norton v. Jim Phillips Horse Transportation, Inc., 901 F.2d 821 (10th Cir. 1989).
Limitation of liability on bill of lading held effective to limit liability of horse transport company.
Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co., 63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 291, 936 P.2d 70 (1997).
Horseback rider was thrown from his horse while riding on a bridle path when the horse was frightened by a garbage truck collecting trash from a bin on a lot adjacent to the bridle path. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the garbage company. The Supreme Court of California affirmed the summary judgment on the basis that no duty of care was breached in the normal operation of the garbage truck, despite the fact that the garbage truck driver knew of the nearby bridle path and knew the collection procedure might frighten a horse.
Riehl v. B&B Livery, Inc., 944 P. 2d 642 (Colo. App. 1997).
Rider sued livery for injuries sustained in a fall. The trial court dismissed the claim because the rider had signed a release. The court of appeals reversed because the release did not cover a claim based on faulty gear because such risk was not a foreseeable risk. The court explained the the risk of faulty gear was not a risk inherent in equine activities nor one obvious to an inexperienced rider.
Rutter v. Arlington Park Jockey Club, 510 F.2d 1065 (7th Cir. 1975).
Exculpatory clause in boarding agreement held effective under Illinois law in barn fire case.
Schwartz v. Armand ERPF Estate, 1999 WL 216815 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.).
A balanced view of the obligation of property owners to foresee the danger created by their horses, which differs as between situations where adults as opposed to children are likely to be.
Shelly v. Stepp, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 323 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1998).
A description of the doctrine of "primary assumption of risk" in the context of practicing for show riding.
Supchak v. Pruitt, 503 S.E.2d 581 (Ga. App. 1998).
A case analyzing the obligation of a pasture owner for harm resulting from his horse wandering off, under principles of negligence.
Young v. Brandt, 485 S.E.2d 519, 1997 WL 12341 (Ga. App. 1997).
Rider who was thrown from a horse and suffered injuries sued and obtained a jury verdict for $250,000. The appeals court reversed because rider clearly assumed the risk of such an accident. The court emphasized that the rider was an experienced horsewoman.
« Back to Case Topics |
|
