search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
THE MARYLAND HORSE COUNCIL Trails Stewardship


Liability of Maryland Landowners Who Allow Horseback Riders on Their Property


By Allan Noble, President of the Equestrian Partners in Conservation (EPIC)


From time to time, I am asked about the liability of landowners who


allow horseback riders to ride on their property. Perhaps this is because I spent close to 50 years as a trial lawyer litigating negligence cases, in- cluding landowner liability. Or, perhaps it’s because I am the President of Equestrian Partners in Conservation (EPIC), a nonprofit that works with landowners to build and maintain equestrian trails in Montgom- ery County. Although Maryland law is clear, it always surprises me how much confusion exists on this issue. If a landowner allows a horseback rider to ride on their property, is the landowner responsible if the rider gets hurt? Tis article addresses this issue and attempts to clear up any confusion that may exist. Simply stated, and with some exceptions, which I will discuss, there is no liability for landowners who allow horseback riders on their property. Te only duty owed by landowners (which includes their agents) to any persons (including horseback riders) they allow to come on their prop- erty is not to willfully injure or entrap them. Essentially these horseback riders take the property as it exists. Te important consideration is that these landowners are simply allowing horseback riders to come on their property but not charging them or specifically inviting them.


Maryland Common Law To better understand this issue, we need to first examine Maryland com-


mon law. In general, common law is a body of law that develops and derives through judicial decisions as distinguished from legislative enactments. Just because someone is injured on your property, doesn’t mean that


anyone is at fault. Rather the person making a claim has to be owed a duty of care which has been breached by the landowner. Under Mary- land common law, the duty of owners or possessors of property to people injured on their property depends upon the injured person’s status on the property. Te law breaks down the status of these persons into four categories: (1) invitees, (2) social guests (also known as licensees by invi- tation), (3) bare licensees and (4) trespassers. An invitee is a person who is invited or permitted to be on another’s


property for purposes related to the owner’s or occupier’s business—such as a boarding stable, a purveyor of riding lessons, etc. A social guest is a person who is on the property of another at the express or implied invita- tion of the owner for reasons unrelated to the owner’s or invitee’s busi- ness. Although this article does not address these first two categories, it should be noted that if you invite a horseback rider onto your property, your liability is the same as if you were inviting any guest onto your property. Tese first two categories present different issues and the legal standards are different. Te liability of an owner in these cases depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Te third and fourth categories are bare licensees and trespassers. A bare licensee is a person who is on another’s property with the consent,


ABOUT THE AUTHOR Allan Noble is a retired trial attorney. He was the managing part- ner of Budow and Noble, a prominent Maryland insurance defense firm. He spent close to 50 years as a civil litigator representing major insurance companies and their insureds in premises liability cases in every jurisdiction in Maryland. Tis included representing landown- ers, stable owners, and horse owners in a variety of cases. He and his wife are avid trail riders, and live on a small farm in Montgomery County’s Agricultural Reserve with their horses and animals. Before retirement, he was active in endurance and competitive trail riding. He currently serves as President of Equestrian Partners in Conser- vation (EPIC) and is past president of the Sugarloaf Riding Club.


but not at the invitation, of the owner or occupier and who is there to serve his or her own interests, but not to serve any interest of the owner or occupier. Having a trail on one’s property and allowing riders to use it is NOT extending an invitation. A trespasser is a person who is on the property without the consent of the owner or occupier of the property. Importantly, the duty owed to a bare licensee or trespasser is the same.


Te only duty owed to a bare licensee or trespasser is to refrain from will- fully injuring or entrapping the person. A bare licensee or trespasser takes the property as it exists. Willful injury involves knowledge of a real and imminent peril to the bare licensee or trespasser. Te Maryland cases dis- cussing this concept generally consider this conduct to be of a deliberate nature. Te classic example of willfulness is a landowner who sets a secret trap, such as spring gun, to injure persons coming on their property. In summary, allowing a horseback rider to ride on your property makes that person a bare licensee. Te only duty owed by the landowner is not to willfully injure or entrap the horseback rider.


The Maryland Recreational Use Statute In 1966 the Maryland legislature adopted the Maryland Recreational


Use Statute (presently found in Section 5–1101, et seq., Natural Re- sources Article, Maryland Code) to limit the liability of landowners in exchange for allowing access to their land for recreational and educa- tional uses. Te statute was derived from a model created by the Coun- cil of State Governments to encourage landowners to make their lands available for public use by limiting tort liability. Section 5–1103 states: “Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Section 5–1106 of


this subtitle, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational or educational purpose, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on the premises to any person who enters on the land for these purposes.” Te exceptions provided in Section 5–1106 are (1) willful, or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or


continued...


MHC TRAILS STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE CHAIR: Carolann Sharpe • blackandwhitecookieequine@gmail.com 40 | APRIL 2025 | THE EQUIERY YOUR MARYLAND HORSE COUNCIL PUBLICATION


800-244-9580 | www.equiery.com


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