Exam
You Be the Judge
1 - C. The court dismissed the lawsuit on the basis of the state’s equine activity liability act. This was a New Jersey case and the trial court dismissed their lawsuit on the basis of New Jer- sey’s Equestrian Activities Liability Act. The mother and son appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that “although the minor did not ride or take care of any horses the day he was bitten, his role in accompanying his mother,” who was en- gaged in an equine activity, “placed him within the immunity statute’s broad definition of a covered ‘participant.’”
2 -C. The court dismissed the mother’s claims but ruled that the document signed by the mother had no legal effect on the child’s claims. Courts in Tennessee, Colorado, Connecticut, Mis- sissippi and Maine, have ruled that a child’s claim for
personal injuries resulting from participation in a recre- ational activity is not barred by a parent’s execution of a pre-injury waiver of liability, release or indemnity agree- ment. The courts have held, however, that such a re- lease agreement is enforceable against the mother and her claim for medical expenses incurred in the child’s “pre-majority” treatment would be barred.
3 - A. The court dismissed the lawsuit on the basis of Georgia’s Equine Activities Act. The injured counselor appealed. The appellate court
explained that the record showed Greg had been leased to the camp the two previous summers and there was “no evidence showing any previous issues or incidents with him. The supervisor of the camp’s equestrian pro- gram testified that it was ‘very likely’ that the horse had been on the same trail where [the counselor] was injured in previous summers because it was a trail commonly used throughout the summer at the camp.” The court ruled the accident was caused by an “inher-
ent risk” of the activity of riding a horse and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the suit against Greg’s owner, finding that no exceptions to the Equine Activities Act applied to the facts of the case. The court’s opinion did not indicate whether the
injured counselor filed any kind of workers’ comp claim against his employer.
4 - C. They let the case go to trial. The federal court affirmed the woman’s right to sue, finding that it was foreseeable that an evacuation order would require horse owners to move their animals and that the animals might injure their owners in the pro- cess.
Krysia Carmel Nelson is a Virginia attorney who is a nationally-recognized expert in equine law. She represents horse own- ers, trainers, riders, breeders, equestrian facilities, farms, clubs and associations across all nationally and internationally recognized disciplines. She currently rides and competes her Hanoverian Affirmed on Appeal in the amateur hunters. She can be reached at
eqlaw@aol.com.
60 May/June 2017
n
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
