Exam F
OUTCOME: ZERO LIABILITY?
alse. The trial court refused to dismiss the case. The case proceeded to trial. A jury returned a verdict finding the auction company at fault, and the court entered judgment against the auction company in the amount of $237,535. The auction company appealed. The judgment award was affirmed on appeal, with
the court of appeals holding that the auction compa- ny could not take advantage of the general immunity provided by the equine activity liability act. The court of appeals explained that the immunity provisions of the Act did not turn on whether the wife was a specta- tor or participant, but instead on the “character of the location” where the injury occurred. Thus, the ques- tion was whether the location where she was injured was a place designated or intended by the auction company as a place for persons who are not partici- pants to be present. The court concluded the following: “it is undisput-
ed that…at the time [the wife] was injured, the rest- rooms could not be reached from the north bleachers without first crossing through an area where horses were led. While many bidders sat in the north bleach- ers in order to be closer to the horses, anyone who
Equine Litigation Consulting Certified Equine Appraisals Expert Witness
came could sit in any seat in the arena they found to be open, including the seats in the north bleacher area…. Therefore, persons not participating in the auction filled in the empty seats in all parts of the arena. To leave their seats and reach the restroom, everyone in the north bleachers, including persons not intending to participate in the auction, must cross through an area where domesticated animal activi- ty—horses being driven to and from the arena floor— was occurring. Therefore, we hold that, because [the auction company] designated or intended [this] as an area for persons who were not participants to be present, the [immunity] exception . . . applies to these facts as a matter of law, and [the auction company] is subject to liability for [the wife’s] injuries.” Unfortunately, it is true that many equine event
facilities are simply not set up in a way that segregates “participants” from “spectators” in a way that abso- lutely prevents a spectator from potentially coming in contact with a horse. So while many of these equine activity liability laws anticipate a distinction between participants and spectators, and “authorized” and “unauthorized” locations, the laws frequently do not anticipate the practical difficulty of creating a safety zone or buffer for spectators for the entirety of their visit to an equine activity facility. While the equine activity liability laws in some states provide that im- munity is extended to spectators who are injured in an “unauthorized” location, the point is that in reality few facilities are designed to contain spectators in a way that prevents them from coming into proximate contact with the animals. This case illustrates this tension, because the wife
Equine Feed
Sadly, cases involving tainted equine feed continues. Make sure you know what your horses are eating and maintain records of lot numbers through the next order. This information is vital for your horse’s health and in a court of law.
David D. Johnson President & CEO
1-800-575-1669
www.NorthAmericanEquine.com 72 January/February 2015
clearly could not have been kicked in the head by a horse if she had stayed sitting in the grandstand. But the court suggests that if the auction company want- ed to avail itself of the immunity afforded by the law, it should have designated a way for the wife to get to the restrooms without getting near a horse.
About the author: Krysia Carmel Nelson is an at- torney from Virginia who is a nationally-recognized expert in equine law. Attorney Nelson represents horse owners, train- ers, riders, breeders, equestrian facilities, farms, clubs and associa-
tions across all nationally and internationally recognized disciplines. As a lifelong equestrian, she currently rides and competes her Hanoverian Affirmed on Appeal in the amateur hunters. She can be reached at
eqlaw@aol.com.
Bar
© The Book LLC 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100