LEGAL ASPECTS OF HORSE MANAGEMENT
LESSON 7: CASE STUDIES IN HORSE
LAW
INTRODUCTION
This
lesson will involve reading the decisions in several equine law cases.
The
decisions reached in these cases may, or may not, be relevant within your particular
state or jurisdiction, and a different result might be reached in a different
case or court if the case were brought there.
However, this lesson will reveal some of the issues that frequently
arise in horse legal proceedings.
You
should read all the cases (the websites are included). As you will note, some of these cases deal
with the principles learned in the prior lessons. You will see how there are no guarantees once
parties have entered the courtroom arena, and seemingly similar fact situations
can result in a completely different judicial decisions in different
jurisdictions.
In
essence, there is no “sure thing” when it comes to the courtroom.
The
cases below are cited and provided and accessible via the websites listed. If the links do not work try an internet
search using the case names.
The
cases should be read with a general eye toward the horse issues that come from
them—e.g. negligence issues and contract law issues. They do not need to be read in detail
and comprehended as a law student might, but should be read summarily so as to
understand the facts and what basically was at issue and decided. In particular, do not get “bogged down” in
the legal procedural issues that are considered in the cases, but rather read
to extract the general legal result.
THE CASES:
Loder v. State of New York, 200 A.D.2d 925, 607 N.Y.S.2d 151 (1994)
This
case can be read at: https://casetext.com/case/loder-v-state
In
this case, the plaintiff was an animal science student at the State University
of New York Cobleskill who was injured after being kicked in the face by a
horse she was tending. The horse was
aggressive and defensive around food, and had been put in a standing
stall. She was kicked upon entering the
stall.
The
lower court held in favor of the plaintiff, but reduced her damages by 40%--the
amount it determined of her responsibility.
This
verdict was appealed by the defendant, but ultimately upheld.
Why
did the court conclude the defendant was responsible? As you can see, the fact that the plaintiff
was not instructed on the proper way to enter a tie stall was significant, as
was the fact that the horse was in the stall at all. Clearly if the horse had been in a box stall
there would have been a much stronger argument for the defendant that no
negligence had occurred.
What
would be the result in a state that does not have comparative negligence?
Since
the court did find the plaintiff partially responsible in this case, the result
would be much different if it had been brought in a state that recognizes
contributory negligence—no recovery would be allowed.
Jividen
v. Law,
194 W. Va. 705, 461 S.E.2d 451 (1995)
Case
can be read at: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1375110/jividen-v-law/
In this
case a person was killed from the kick of a young horse that was loose in a
paddock. The action against the owners
failed in that it was found the defendants did not breach any standard of
care. The court’s discussion on standard
of care is instructive. It noted that a
person seeking to recover for harm from a horse (or other animal) can either
proceed under strict liability (where the owner or handler knows of the
dangerous propensities of the animal) or under ordinary negligence where he/she
acts negligently in failing to prevent the harm.
Thus,
in order for the plaintiff to succeed in this case (and in order to overturn
the court on appeal) it would have been essential to establish via evidence
that the defendants either knew of the horse’s vicious tendencies, or that they
in some manner contributed to the harm.
The plaintiff’s failure to establish that it was foreseeable that this
particular horse would act as he did was fatal to the plaintiff’s claim.
In
Jividen, the defendant succeeded in defending against the claim. However, consider the cost in doing so; this
case proceeded against multiple parties and involved not only the original
claim, but a cross-claim between the defendants. It was not only heard below, but also argued
on appeal. The cost in doing so was
likely immense and brings to the forefront the urgency of managing risk to
avoid lawsuits.
Doyle v. The Monroe County Deputy Sheriff’s Ass’n, 195 Misc. 2d 358, 758 N.Y.S.2d 751
(2003)
Case
can be read at https://cite.case.law/misc-2d/195/358/
In
this case a child was injured from a kick by a pony getting off the
trailer. Suit was brought on behalf of the
child for the injuries suffered.
Although the strict liability claim was dismissed, as there was no
awareness of the animal’s dangerousness, the case was permitted to move forward
based upon ordinary negligence.
As
you will note in this case the level of care can be different depending upon
who the injured party is. In this case,
the injured person was a child which clearly dictated the need to take
additional precautions.
Zukatis v. Perry, 165 Vt. 298, 682 A.2d 964 (1996)
Case
can be read at https://cite.case.law/vt/165/298/
In
Zutakis, the plaintiff was also a child
who was injured by the kick of a horse.
However, in this case the child was a trespasser who wandered into a
field and was kicked. As previously
discussed, a trespasser is owed few duties, however
duties can arise with respect to children faced with an attractive
nuisance. The court, however, rejected
the notion that the doctrine of attractive nuisance applied to render the defendant
liable in this particular case.
Slack
v. Cropper, 143
OhioApp.3d 74, 757 N.E.2d 404 (2001)
Case
can be read at: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3978898/slack-v-cropper/?q=slack+v+cropper
In
Slack, a horse trainer sued and recovered monies due from a horse owner
for training the owner’s five horses.
Although there was no written contract, it was found that the services
were performed and remained unpaid. The
trial court found sufficient evidence that such amount was owed, which was
upheld on appeal.
This
case typifies the often-brought collection case, and also reveals the
complexities of proceeding in court. As
you will note, the decision on appeal involved several procedural and
evidentiary issues which were ultimately determinative in the case.
As
stated above, legal cases are often decided on procedural issues other than the
general legal basis upon which the case was brought. Thus, in Slack, had the court refused
to recognize the evidence concerning the accounts under the evidentiary
“hearsay rule”, the result may have been completely different.
From
a horse management perspective, Slack also
emphasizes the need to proceed scrupulously with horse bookkeeping
practices. Although the plaintiff in Slack
was not ultimately prevented from submitting evidence on the accounts, as
sloppy bookkeeping went to the weight to be given such evidence as opposed to
its admissibility, it would nonetheless give the opposing side less of an
argument in court.
Morningstar
v. Hallet, 858 A.2d 125 (Pa. Super. 2004)
Case
can be read at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591476aeadd7b049343c6d3f
In
Morningstar a horse purchaser brought suit against a seller for selling
a horse that was 16 years old, when the contract for sale was for an
11-year-old horse. The defendant seller
argued that the contract of sale, which contained an “as is” clause, precluded
recovery. The court however disagreed,
concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to proceed to trial to establish the
age of the horse. The court considered
warranty law and the U.C.C. and determined that the age of the horse was an
express warranty, which could not be disclaimed by virtue of language that the
sale of the horse was “as is.”
Wright v. Loon Mountain Equestrian Center, 140 N.H. 166, 663 A.2d 1340
(1995)
Case
can be read at: https://casetext.com/case/wright-v-loon-mt-recreation-corp
In
Wright, a plaintiff sued to recover injuries suffered when she was kicked
by a horse while on a trail ride at the defendant’s stable. The defendant sought to defend the action
based on a release that the plaintiff has signed.
The
defendant won at the trial court level based upon the effect of the
release. However, on appeal the New
Hampshire Supreme Court held that the release did not clearly relieve the
defendant of liability and sent the case back for trial.
The
court considered in detail the specific language of the release, strictly
construing it against the defendant. The
court concluded that the language of the release was clouded by qualifying
phrases and thus did not put the plaintiff on notice of what she was
releasing. The court stated: “The agreement easily could have been framed
in a manner that would have expressed more clearly its conditions and
exclusions.”
The
decision in Wright emphasizes the need for absolute clarity and accuracy
in releases. A release that is
ineffective is as good as no release at all.
It should however be noted that the law on releases varies widely from
state to state. Some states have a
strong distaste for releases, and avoid enforcing them, while others are quick
to recognize them. It is a good idea to
fully understand the manner in which releases are treated in the state in which
you conduct business.
Shumate
v. Lycan, 675 N.E.2d 749 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)
Case
can be read at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8909638183991737768&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
In
Shumate, an action was also brought as a result of injuries suffered
while on a trail ride. As in Wright,
discussed above, the plaintiff had signed a release. However the court in Shumate reached a
much different result. The court
determined the release was not unconscionable and thus it was ultimately upheld
precluding plaintiff’s claim.
As
you can see from reading the above cases, lawsuits—even those involving simple,
straightforward issues—can be complex and financially and emotionally
draining. It is more often than not
preferable to avoid litigation altogether, by either preventing such situations
from arising or settling an already started dispute.
Horse
persons are unfortunately frequent parties in court due to lax contracting
methods, and the risk of injuries working around horses.
However,
the risk of litigation can somewhat be reduced by following certain practices,
such as:
1. Have an attorney draft and/or review all
contracts used.
A
contract that is not effective, or fails to do what intended, is simply a waste
of paper, and may give a person a false sense of security.
2. Take scrupulous care in conducting barn
activities and riding/ground safety. Sloppiness
with safety issues is asking for a lawsuit.
Stress safety with your own activities, as well as with any staff and
all clients. Have a no tolerance policy
with respect to anything but safe procedures.
3. Hire a bookkeeper if you are unable to do
it yourself. As with the reluctance
to hire an attorney, there is a “do-it-yourself” attitude with respect to
bookkeeping. However, too many horse
persons are guilty of completely neglecting proper accounting procedures and
this could be a costly error in the event of any business litigation or tax
dispute.
4. Insurance—Get it. As the cases above reveal, even a release
or a seemingly “sure winner” of a case may sometimes lose. There are no guarantees that a release,
contract, or statute will protect you and insurance is one way that you can
significantly reduce the financial threat posed by litigation.
If
all fails and a lawsuit must be brought, it is strongly advised that you hire
an attorney to do so. A party is
entitled to proceed on their own behalf (appearing “pro se”), though the risk
of defeat against a represented party is high.
Some
cases are capable of being brought in small claims court—those under a certain
state-imposed dollar amount. In most
small claims courts attorneys are not allowed—in the courtroom (it is still
possible to consult with an attorney outside of court in a small claims
case). This can even out the playing
field in parties, and makes the result simple and quick (a small claims action
involves no motions, preliminary proceedings, and is a short—frequently
minutes—argument presented to a judge).
In some states, however, small claims is not
mandatory for small lawsuits, but optional, and the defendant is permitted to
move the case to a trial court level.
If
you need, due to the size of the case, to proceed in a state trial court, or
federal court (certain claims must be brought in federal court), it is
possible, but not advisable, to proceed without an attorney. However, the likelihood of losing is great. The procedural hurdles involved in proceeding
in court are significant.
One
missed deadline or improper pleading can result in the case never being heard.
Unlike
small claims court, where procedures are simple to understand and follow, trial
court procedures can be a maze to a non-lawyer. If the other side is represented, it
increases the likelihood of a procedural or substantive error in presenting the
case.
As
stated above, a horse person should take all necessary precautions in avoiding lawsuits. However, if court should become inevitable,
have adequate representation to protect your interests; attempting to cut costs
can be an economic disaster if faced with an unfavorable judgment.