LEGAL ASPECTS OF HORSE MANAGEMENT
LESSON
SIX: MISCELLANEOUS ASPECTS OF HORSE LAW
Legal issues affect many areas
of the horse world, beyond those involving the business, contract and tort
matters discussed in earlier lessons.
This Lesson will survey some of the other areas of the horse world that
have legal implications.
I.
Zoning/Real Property Issues
The increasing
urban/suburbanization of society has rendered the
horse farm environment subject to attack and restriction by competing
interests.
While a horse person does not blink
over the smell of manure, and the inevitable presence of flies, others in the
community may not be so immune. The fear
that such intolerance would ultimately make farms extinct via operation of tougher
zoning laws and nuisance lawsuits brought by newcomers, resulted in the passage
(in all 50 states) of Right to Farm Acts.
Such statutes typically protect commercial farming activities (e.g.
horse farms) from being declared a nuisance due to changed conditions, if the
farm has been in business for the statutorily stated period of time. The terms of the particular statute must be
complied with in order for a farm to be protected; many such laws disallow the
protected farm from expanding operations or violating other laws (e.g.
environmental/health laws).
Notwithstanding consideration of a
state’s right to farm statute, a horse owner should be aware of local laws
regulating land use including zoning, environmental laws, and fencing laws.
Zoning laws frequently restrict what,
if any, livestock—such as horses—can be kept on a tract of land, or may limit
the number of livestock or require a minimum number of acres. There also may be restrictions on the layout
of a farm. For example, there may be a
requirement that a horse paddock be setback from the road a certain number of
feet.
Community or homeowner association
rules may limit any ownership of livestock, regardless of the fact that a horse
may be acceptable outside of the given community. The best advice for horse owners is to
closely check all land use and environmental laws and regulations prior to
engaging in an activity affecting one’s land.
Consideration must also be given to
any farm expansion. The construction of
roads and buildings may violate not only zoning regulations, but also result in
a Clean Water Act violation. Horse
manure accumulation or stockpiling may result in Clean Water Act violations, as
well as individual liability with neighboring landowners who are harmed by
groundwater pollution.
A horse owner’s fence can also result
in legal trouble. Fencing laws vary
widely between the states, but in general require the owner of livestock to
either “fence-in” or “fence-out” the animals (e.g. open range laws). Some states have variations of both,
providing that certain persons must fence-in while others may fence-out. Such laws also typically provide details
concerning the type and size of fencing permitted, as well as rules concerning
maintenance and repair. In a fence-in
state there is liability if a horse breaks out, causes harm, and the owner’s
negligence was the cause of the escape.
In sum, owning a horse, or operating a
horse farm implicates several real estate and land use issues and local and
state laws must be consulted in order to avoid noncompliance or potential
lawsuits.
II. Animal Rights/Humane organizations
and laws
Animal welfare and the humane
treatment of horses are dealt with at the local, state and federal level. Such statutes address the humane treatment of
horses, humane showing/racing of horses, drug use on horses and transportation
safety issues. In addition there are
numerous nonprofit organizations designed to promote kind and responsible horse
care, as well as groups who would limit or abolish the use horses for human
pleasure.
It should also be noted that many
breed and showing/competition organizations address humane treatment for
horses, violation of which could result in “competition right” being removed.
In addition to legal troubles, those
violating horse regulations and laws will be subject to action by governmental
agencies, such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that
regulates the soring of show horses. A
violator of the American Horse Protection Act can be subject to restrictions on
competition as well as significant fines.
It is important to note that this law
and regulations are read broadly and, in the case of soring, any person who is
involved in the show application would be liable for a violation. A recent case reveals this fact where a
person was found legally responsible where the only connection to entering a
“sored” horse was the act of signing the check for the entry fee.
Competition venues and breed/show
associations also impose rules. At
Suffolk Downs Track in Massachusetts the track has adopted a zero tolerance
position on horse slaughter. Trainers
found responsible for sending “race track rejects” to slaughter will be banned
from the track. The track has taken its
policy seriously, and just recently banned five trainers for violating the
policy despite the fact the trainers did not know that the horses—that had been
given away—were heading for a slaughterhouse.
Needless to say, a horse operator or
owner must and should comply with all local, state and federal laws and
regulations concerning the humane treatment of horses. The failure to do so will subject a violator
to fines, damages, potential jail and serious detriment to a business. To the extent a horse person becomes aware of
a potential violation of such humane laws—e.g. an underfed, illegally drugged,
sored, or abused horse—it is possible to report the same anonymously.
III. Employment Law/Licensing
Any horse business that hires employees, will be required to comply with relevant federal
and state labor laws. There must also be
compliance with worker’s compensation laws, wage and hours
laws, immigration laws, and taxation laws.
Particularly in the horse business, immigration and tax law must be
thoughtfully considered and closely monitored to ascertain continued
compliance—these are relevant areas of law in the horse world, and are subject
to frequent changes in the legislature and the courts.
The need to comply with all the laws
and rules that come with hiring an employee is serious. The failure to do so subjects the business
owner to potentially significant fines and civil liability. Indeed this is true with respect to the
immigration laws.
Horse farms—particularly large Thoroughbred
farms and race tracks--have historically hired aliens. However, the increased concern over
immigration and border security, has resulted in more
stringent immigration laws and more severe penalties that are capable of
shutting down a farm.
Workplace injuries and worker’s
compensation are also frequent issues in horse businesses due to the relatively
risky nature of the work. In Workers
Comp an employee injured in the scope of employment can recover a set amount
based upon the nature of his/her injuries.
The tradeoff is that the employee’s right to sue an employer for the
same injuries is thereby waived.
Employers frequently challenge
“workers compensation” claims due to the negative impact on insurance
rates. An often-raised issue is whether
the injury occurred in the scope of employment.
By way of example, an exercise rider who is thrown while galloping a
two-year old clearly has suffered an injury within the scope of employment, but
many cases are not so easy. For
instance, what if a groom is driving a horse on the way to a horse show and
stops at a rest area where he is injured when he trips over the sidewalk and
falls. Is this injury within the scope
of employment? Yes, it likely would
be. While injuries suffered while
commuting to work would not be included under workers compensation, if the
activity is requested or otherwise condoned by the employer, and in furtherance
of the employer’s business, workers comp would apply. Of course, if the groom got injured when he
took a detour to a local bar for a quick beer with friends, it would be said
that he abandoned any employee activity and any injury would be outside the
scope of employment.
In addition to worker’s compensation and
immigration issues, employers need to adequately consider the nature of the
employee’s relationship with the farm.
An employee—as opposed to an independent contractor—is someone who
performs at the behest and direction of the employer. By contrast, an independent contractor is one
who is given a particular task and figures out on his/her own how to accomplish
it.
It is important the nature of the
relationship between a farm and the persons hired be clearly determined; the
rights and obligations differ substantially between independent contractors and
employees (e.g. workers comp insurance is not necessary for independent
contractors).
If an employee does not have an
employment contract, or is not a union employee, he or she will—in most
states—be serving “at will” and subject to dismissal for any reason or no
reason at all. The only objections to
the firing of such an employee would be for discriminatory reasons or
retaliatory purposes.
Discriminatory motives in firing are
not acceptable for either an “at will” or employee under contract, and can
subject an employer to significant penalties and statutory damages.
Retaliatory firing is also
unacceptable for any (contract or at will) employee.
By way of example--Karen is employed
by Feather Farm without a contract in order to act as a groom. Karen is a great worker and takes superb care
of the horses. She is otherwise prompt,
professional and likeable to other employees and clients at the farm. Jim, the manager of the farm who hired Karen,
left his job and was replaced by Bob.
Bob had authority to supervise, hire and fire all employees. Shortly after starting work he decided he did
not like the fact that Karen drove a Honda to work—he was partial to
Toyotas. As a result, Bob informed Karen
that she was fired and should not return to work.
In the above example, it may come as a
surprise to know that Bob (legally) has done nothing wrong and was fully within
his right to fire Karen. Karen had no
employment contract and was not fired for discriminatory or retaliatory
reasons. An “at will” employee serves at
the employer’s will and can be dismissed for completely ridiculous
reasons. Of course, had Karen been
dismissed because she was a woman, and she could prove that fact, the Farm
would be liable.
IV. Taxation
How taxes are handled in a
horse business and how a horse person should handle the filing of returns and
payment of tax is sufficiently complex and important that most horse persons,
and all horse businesses, should get the opinion of a tax advisor (CPA or tax
attorney). This is particularly true in
light of the close eye the IRS maintains over horse farms and the frequency
that tax returns filed by horse persons and businesses are called into question
and challenged by the IRS.
Horse farms frequently file returns
with substantial losses and little income (an unfortunate consequence of being
in a business for the love of horses despite the economic potential); horse
owners also frequently attempt to right off as business expenses horses that
are primarily used for personal purposes.
Horse businesses, many of which are small or solo operations, frequently
maintain sloppy bookkeeping methods (e.g. paying for hay with a personal check)
and thus look less business-like. It is
important to recognize that hobby losses—those incurred for engaging in a
hobby—are not deductible and are included in income for tax purposes.
A
horse farm that is truly a business is entitled to deduct all business
expenses. Thus, hay, grain, farrier etc.
will be deductible from the farm’s income.
If the farm is not a business, no such expenses are deductible. For example--Lullaby Farm is owned by John,
an insurance sales person. John works at
least 60 hours a week and is earning over $100,000 a year.
John
has 5 horses that he has trained and has begun competing. John thinks that maybe someday he will sell
one or more of the horses and get another horse. John files a tax return and attaches a
schedule C to his 1040 reflecting profit/loss from his “business.” Because he has significant expenses (care,
competition for five horses) and no income he has a $25,000 loss which he then
attempts to deduct from his $125,000.00 insurance work income. What will the IRS think of this?
The
IRS would definitely challenge John’s return and attempt to recover tax on the
$25,000 that John deducted.
First
of all, the fact that John thinks he has a business, and calls it a “farm” is
irrelevant for determining whether it is a business.
The
fact that John has another job (insurance agent) at which he works significant
hours and for which he receives substantial income will significantly hurt
John’s case. He obviously, because of
this fact, cannot devote the time necessary to run a business, and has no
profit incentive, but rather the incentive to incur expenses and no
income.
For
a horse person to deduct expenses it must be deemed a business. The IRS will closely look at the operation to
see if:
The
business is structured and operated as a business (separate business accounts,
no mingling with personal income)
Employees are hired—makes it look more like a business.
Is
the owner engaged primarily in the business or do they have a full-time job
elsewhere.
Does
the business market and advertise its operation or services? Are
experts (e.g. attorney, CPA) hired to advise on
business operations?
How
much are the profits/losses?
Does
the owner receive personal pleasure from the business?
The
last of the above factors—“does the owner receive personal pleasure”—is a
difficult one for many horse persons.
There are persons that have horse businesses who make little profit and
yet who receive substantial person satisfaction. Most, if not all, horse persons know someone
who operates a horse business on a shoestring and is willing to undergo
personal sacrifices in order to work with horses.
So
how might a horse person structure his/her horse business to reduce the risk of
an IRS audit, or reduce the success of IRS collection efforts?
The
following list outlines things that may help:
Structure
activities the way a business would—have a business plan, hire experts for
advice, advertise, have professional bookkeeping and recordkeeping, track
profits.
Become
an expert in your field (e.g. trade associations, breed associations) and hire
experts to handle business/legal activities.
Record
hours spent in detail. Spend a lot of
hours at the activity. (e.g. riding a few hours a week and going to a weekend horse show
would not be adequate).
Track
and keep records of assets (acquisition, sale and profit) and show how profits
may be made.
History
of profits may be relevant—e.g. having profits 5 out of 7 years would indicate
a business—but 2 years of profit out of 7 is not a guarantee that the operation
will not be deemed a hobby. It is merely
a factor.
Show
significant profits. A “business” that
earns $25.00 profit several years does not necessarily reflect that it is a
business and not a hobby since few businesses would continue with such weak
results.
Little
other income will help a taxpayer seeking to deduct horse expenses. It reflects that the “business” is a true
operation, as opposed to someone with a full-time career elsewhere who merely
engages in the activity on a part-time or limited basis, and who is possibly
using the expenses to offset personal income from the other career.
While
the “lack of pleasure” element can help the case for establishing a business,
as noted above, this test is difficult to meet in a horse operation. What may help, however, is separating out and
not deducting expenses for horses used for strictly personal reasons.
For
example--Tim has a small barn business where he purchases ex-racehorses,
retrains them and sells them as show horses.
He has 8 horses currently for sale and 5 in training. One horse he really likes and has decided to
keep and possibly show. After the horse
is retrained and saleable he continues to ride the horse for fun/show, and has
not advertised him for sale. This horse
is likely for pleasure and expenses relating to him would not be
deductible. Tim would be wise to record
this difference and remove from the barn expenses—which would be deductible as
a business expense—the expenses attributable to his “pet.”
The
above details the hobby/loss problem that is implicated with horse
businesses. A horse person should
thoughtfully consider this, as well as other tax issues, and his/her activities
structured to best avoid IRS attack.
V.
Death and Beyond: Wills/Trusts
The
death of a horse is devastating to a horse owner and a horse business,
however what happens thereafter is too infrequently given advance thought. With respect to burial, local laws should be
consulted to determine if burial in certain locations is prohibited or if
minimum depth or other requirements are imposed. Cremation is also a possibility, though
significantly more expensive. Rendering
is another option.
What
happens in the event the owner dies is more problematic if the owner has not
prepared for this possibility. A horse,
being a form of property, goes into the estate of a deceased person and, as
such, may be sold or used to pay off debts of the estate. If the estate has no debts and a number of
beneficiaries, such persons would own a partial share in the horse. For all practical purposes this means that
the horse would likely be sold—to anyone.
This
is a result that many caring horse owners would prefer to avoid, desiring
instead that their trusty mount was going to a particular person, or cared for
in the same manner. A horse or horses
can, of course, be included in the will of a person.
Tom
can leave his two horses to Ann. This
bequest would result in title transferring to Ann, which may be a good thing, since
Ann is a friend of Tom’s and he thinks a lot of her horse skills.
However,
this approach has its drawbacks. First
of all the horse may be tied up in probate before going to Ann, leaving open the
question of who is to care for the horse immediately. Secondly, and significantly, Ann could
decide, immediately upon getting the horse, that she
did not like it and could do with it what she wanted. Simply said, the deceased again loses control
over the fate of his/her horse.
(Note: will requests that a horse be destroyed at
the owner’s death—sometimes attempted by persons that deem no one else should
care for the horse—are not enforced by the courts).
A
pet trust however is, depending upon the state, another option and one which
gives the deceased the most control over the horse’s disposition and care. Historically a trust to benefit the horse was
disallowed, as a horse is property, not a human, and thus cannot own
anything. In the law’s eyes, it would be
the equivalent of leaving a sum of money in trust to benefit your sofa. This approach, in addition to other legal
objections to such trusts, has been eroded.
Indeed several states specifically approve of such a trust.
By
way of example, read the following Virginia statute providing for pet trusts:
A.
A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the
settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if
the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive
during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal.
Funds from the trust may be applied to any outstanding expenses of the trust
and for burial or other post-death expenditures for animal beneficiaries as
provided for in the instrument creating the trust.
B.
The instrument creating the trust shall be liberally construed to bring the
transfer within the scope of trusts governed by this section, to presume
against the merely precatory or honorary nature of the disposition, and to
carry out the general intent of the transferor. Extrinsic evidence is
admissible in determining the transferor's intent.
C.
A trust authorized by this section may be enforced by a person appointed in the
terms of the trust or, if no person is so appointed, by a person appointed by
the court. A person having an interest in the welfare of the animal may request
the court to appoint a person to enforce the trust or to remove a person
appointed. The appointed person shall have the rights of a trust beneficiary
for the purpose of enforcing the trust, including receiving accountings,
notices, and other information from the trustee and providing consents.
Reasonable compensation for a person appointed by the court may be paid from
the assets of the trust.
D.
Except as ordered by a court or required by the trust instrument, no filing,
report, registration, periodic accounting, separate maintenance of funds,
appointment, or surety bond shall be required by reason of the existence of the
fiduciary relationship of the trustee.
E.
Property of a trust authorized by this section may be applied only to its
intended use, except to the extent the court determines that the value of the
trust property exceeds the amount required for the intended use. Except as
otherwise provided in the terms of the trust, property not required for the
intended use shall be distributed to the settlor, if then living. If the settlor is deceased, such property
shall be distributed pursuant to the residuary clause of the settlor's will if
the trust for the animal was created in a preresiduary
clause in the will or pursuant to the residuary provisions of the intervivos trust if the trust for the animal was created in
a preresiduary clause in the trust instrument; otherwise,
such property shall be distributed to the settlor's successors in interest.
Va.
Code Ann. § 55-544.08.
As
demonstrated by the above, the statute expressly authorizes the appointing of a
person as a means of enforcing the trust.
This is what makes such a trust possible, since an animal beneficiary on
its own behalf cannot enforce a trust.
It
should also be noted that a pet trust can be testamentary (at death, in the
will) or intervivos (during the settlor’s life). How the trust should be structured and set up
should be discussed with an attorney, as if the trust were to fail so to would
the ability to care for the horse(s).
Key issues that will have to be determined are: Who is the trustee? Who will care for the animals--not
necessarily the trustee? Who will
enforce the trust? How will the horse(s)
be cared for? How will the trust be
funded?
This
last issue is the primary detraction to pet trusts. Without adequate funds to maintain the level
of care the trust will fail. Even if the
trust is adequately funded, a settlor should anticipate and prepare for the
possibility that the money will run out.
In that connection, the horse could be left with a particular person—but
what if that named person dies or is unable to care for the horse?
A
popular last resort in such a case is to donate the horse to a rescue group
that accepts horses.
It
should again be emphasized that this is an area of law with vast differences from
state to state; some states flat out reject the notion of pet trusts, some
accept them, and others have recognized them by statute. However, even in the statutes that have
adopted pet trust laws, there are vast differences. Professional legal advice is necessary to
adequately safeguard your animals.
In
addition, there are other means of attempting to care for your horses after
death. For example: an intervivos or testamentary trust could be set up to benefit
a person who was caring for, or to care for, the horse. The beneficiary would be distributed an
amount, conditional upon it being applied to the horse’s care. This would be simpler, as there is a human
able to enforce the trust.
Another
issue that may need to be decided is whether there should be an intervivos or testamentary trust. The primary advantage to an intervivos trust is that it takes effect immediately and
avoids the possible delay in the case of a testamentary trust for the period of
time between death and the probate of the will—a delay during which there would
be no funds for caring for the horse.
The disadvantage to such a trust is that it would be an additional
expense as it is a separate document as opposed to being included in the will.
The
following details the steps in forming a pet trust:
Determine whether intervivos or
testamentary.
Designate the caretaker of the animal
and trust beneficiary.
Name a trustee.
Bequeath the horse to the trustee.
Determine the amount of property to
transfer to the trust (money needed to care for horse).
Detail the type of care (e.g. field
board, full care board, daily grooming, etc.).
How are disbursements to be made?
Limit the trust term to a human life
(not a pet life).
Determine whether additional amounts be
disbursed to caretaker.
Name the remainder beneficiary (what
happens when pet dies)—do not leave remaining amounts to caretaker.
Identify the horse with detail to
avoid fraud.
Authorize trustee to inspect horse and
its care.
Detail what to do when animal dies.
Again, it is wise to seek the consult
and services of an attorney in drawing up a trust in order to best protect the
interests of the animals it seeks to help.
VI.
The Internet and the Law--Jurisdiction
The
business and personal use of the internet by horse persons is immense. Farms and other horse businesses can maintain
a website promoting the operation generally, and specifically marketing horses
or services. Unlike traditional
marketing efforts, there are no geographic limitations, and potential clients
and horse buyers are targeted all over the world.
However, the use of the internet brings up a
host of legal issues that must be appreciated in order to maintain a website,
or otherwise use it for marketing, without incurring substantial risk and
liability.
The
prime focus of this discussion will relate to the jurisdictional implications
of the internet in horse business transactions and sales. The
intellectual property issues concerning websites are not directly discussed. Although it should be noted that, in
connection specifically with having a website, there exists potential liability
for copyright and trademark infringement, defamation and laws prohibiting
sexually explicit material. While wise
horse persons would avoid such material in creating a website, there must also
be control over posters or bloggers on the site. It should also be noted that the Uniform
Commercial Code, as previously discussed in the lessons addressing horse sales
does apply to internet transactions.
A
big question with respect to marketing, or offering for sale, horses over the
internet, is whether such activities expose a seller to litigation in all
geographic locations. For example, if a
New York horse farm that sells Welsh ponies has a website listing horses for
sale, and a California resident sees the site, contacts the farm via computer,
and (yes, this is done) buys the horse sight unseen over the internet, may the
New York farm be brought into court in California as a defendant when the sales
transaction goes bad and a lawsuit is brought by the buyer?
The
answer to this question depends upon general jurisdictional principles as they
are applied to the internet. The term
“jurisdiction” relates in broad terms to the authority of a court to hear a
given dispute. A lawsuit will fail
unless there exists “subject matter jurisdiction”
which involves the specific authority of a court to hear such cases and
“personal jurisdiction” which involves whether subjecting a defendant to a
lawsuit in that state complies with notions of due process. The lack of jurisdiction is fatal to a
lawsuit—regardless of the merits of the case.
In
determining whether there is personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a simple
contract dispute, if both parties reside in one state and the subject matter of
the dispute involved the same state there is no question that such state would
have jurisdiction. A resident of a
state, or who is present and served in a state, or who has contacts with a
state, is subject to jurisdiction there.
If a person—or corporation—is not present in a state, not a resident and
without contacts in a state, personal jurisdiction will not exist and the
action will fail if brought therein.
While
it is usually easy to tell where a defendant resides, or is present, the notion
of the amount of contacts necessary to submit a defendant to jurisdiction is
not always clear. One transaction will
not do it, though several or frequent contacts may. The real issue is whether dragging the
defendant into court in such a state is agreeable with notions of fair play and
substantial justice; personal jurisdiction must always comply with due process
concerns.
With
the use of the internet, it could be argued that a horse farm selling horses
has contacts with every state and country and thus subject to lawsuits
everywhere. However, this is not a
correct statement of the law. The mere
presence of a website does not result in personal jurisdiction. Rather, courts
apply one of several approaches in analyzing whether the existence of a website
exposes a farm or horse business to jurisdiction in a state. Unfortunately there is not one concrete rule,
and the continuously evolving area of “cyber-law” leaves a certain unknown for
farms and horse persons with websites.
One
such approach considers interactive use versus passive use of a website. A website that is purely passive—that simply
provides information concerning the business-- will not subject the business to
jurisdiction in a given state. Thus a
farm in New York with a website that introduces its business, services, contact
information, and links will not subject it to a lawsuit in California brought
by a California resident who traveled to the farm, after seeing the website,
and was injured while trying a horse for sale.
It should be noted that other contacts with California would subject the
farm to liability there regardless of whether they related to the horse injury.
For
example, if the New York farm had a California business license, competed there
frequently, advertised in California media and publications and received
substantial sales from the state minimum contacts might be found, and
jurisdiction would be proper there (note:
jurisdiction may be proper in more than one state).
Unlike
passive use of a website, which does not--without more—expose
a defendant to jurisdiction in a state, interactive use of website does
implicate jurisdiction. “Interactive
use” involves a two-way online communication that promotes an ongoing business
relationship—information is exchanged in order to solicit or otherwise conduct
business. The nature of the interactive
use must go beyond mere advertising; there must exist
sufficient active contacts such as doing business in the state, conducting
business through contacts in the state, or transacting business over the
internet.
Many
cases involve websites that are not simply passive or interactive, but rather
in the middle: the website is informational/advertising and there exists a means by which
a user can exchange information and develop a business relationship with the
host. If the interactive element to the
site is not directed to a particular state, and/or commercial activities do not
result therein, then some courts would find no jurisdiction in that state. However, other courts have approved of
jurisdiction in a state where the interactive nature of the website was solely
the presence of a toll-free number used in an attempt to solicit business. Other courts have considered the number of
contacts as determinative, looking at the number of “hits” that a given website
has received from a particular state.
As
the above discussion reveals, there is no clear answer as to where a business
may be subject to jurisdiction by virtue of a website (other than the state
that it is formed, or where it conducts business) but clearly the more
interactive contacts there are in a given state will increase the risk of being
subject to suit there.
As
a final note on website liability, it is wise for horse persons to exercise
great caution in the statements made in listing horses for sale. Seemingly innocuous statements on a website,
advertising horses for sale, could be deemed a warranty, or representation
concerning the particular animal listed.
Similarly, caution should be exercised in including a contract or
release on the site. Having a website
reviewed by an attorney (annually) would be a wise investment in light of the
potentially significant legal and financial consequences, and the evolving and
somewhat uncertain nature of cyber-law.
VII.
Conclusion
The
above areas of law are relevant to those owning horses or operating horse
businesses or farms. This review is not
all-inclusive; there are other areas of law that arise in an equine law
case. This review is also not
exhaustive, but rather designed to create an educated awareness of the legal
environment as it relates to horses.
Such an educated approach to horse activities can increase the enjoyment
and reduce the likelihood of potentially devastating legal troubles. The risks involved with horses—of getting
your foot stomped on, or falling off etc.—cannot totally be removed, but
compliance with necessary laws and legal principles can greatly limit legal
liability.