Equine Liability Statute Fails to Protect
Bill Kambic
Cricket
"Bill Kambic" <wjka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:p0tli5ltqf6ka2noc...@4ax.com...
> http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_5ab8c098-eac3-11de-9227-001cc4c03286.html
My friend with the riding stable won't even let a horse's name stay "Buck"
or "Risky" or "Bronco". Michigan has stood behind their horse people pretty
much with our liability law, but they're very clear about the requirements
as far as prior knowledge of bad behavior.
Cricket
Tara
news:p0tli5ltqf6ka2noc...@4ax.com...
> http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_5ab8c098-eac3-11de-9227-001cc4c03286.html
That's a shame. IMO it doesn't matter what the horse may have been known to
do. When you get on a horse you're taking a risk. You may fall off and have
no harm done, a huge bruise to show for it or a broken neck. It is what it
is.
I agree there's a problem with anyone wanting to hang their hat as a
trainer. I've had this issue for years with dog people too. Unfortunately
its not a problem that will be fixed (or fixed to the majority's liking)
anytime soon.
Tara
JC Dill
> IMO it doesn't matter what the horse may have been known
> to do. When you get on a horse you're taking a risk.
Yes, and No. We don't have all the facts in this case - we don't know
the truth about the horse's history with bolting, and we don't know what
issues there might have been with the headgear used in this ride, and we
don't know if this was the rider's first time on this horse, and we
don't know if the horse's bolting issues/history were disclosed to the
rider. All of these factors could impact the issue.
For example:
1) If the horse was known to bolt, and in fact had bolted with someone
the previous week, and they put a new rider on the horse with an
insufficient (e.g. with a rope halter, rather than with a bit), AND they
didn't tell the rider the horse was known to bolt, then the problem is
that they didn't properly disclose to the rider known risks with *this*
horse.
2) OTOH, if the horse never bolted before, or if the horse had a
problem bolting 3 years ago but had since received remedial training and
hadn't bolted since so there was no reason any reasonable horseperson
would suspect or believe it might suddenly bolt again with this rider
now, then it's just "one of those things" a rider assumes the risk of
happening as part of the activity of horseback riding.
Taking horses out of the picture - think about the situation when a
business has a wet floor. They put up a sign saying "caution, wet
floor" to alert customers and employees to the dangerous situation.
Once the floor is dry, they can remove the sign. If you manage to slip
and fall on a normal dry floor, the company wasn't negligent merely
because the floor had previously been wet, dangerous, and labeled as
such. Even if someone spills something moments before and you slip on a
*wet* floor, it still isn't negligence - it just happened and there's no
reasonable way the company could have warned you or prevented you from
slipping. However, if there's an ongoing problem with water on the
floor in this area (e.g. leaky roof) and they don't address it AND they
don't have a sign up when the floor is wet, then we have a situation
where there is likely some negligence and the company should be held liable.
I hope some smart equestrian-business defending lawyer can present this
type of analogy in a future case to help educate judges, juries, and set
a precedent that makes sense.
jc
Grizzly
> http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_5ab8c098-eac3-11de-9227-001cc4c03286.html
The horse had a tendency to bolt, had done it before, and probably
bolted and when the rider came off: she died. If I had a horse that
would savage somebody, was a known biter, and tended to kick anyone
within range, then told Joe Shmoe to go on in and get him out of his
stall that would fall within the range of gross negligence. The same
thing applies to this known bolter being handed off to a "natural"
horsemanship acolyte who likely didn't know how to ride well enough to
get a bolter back in hand. The liability statute doesn't prevent anyone
from being sued. It merely lays out guidelines that keep the vast
majority of participants from getting large awards should they decide to
sue. That aside, it was never meant to keep someone from being held
liable for gross negligence.
Jane Saranac
"Bill Kambic" <wjka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:p0tli5ltqf6ka2noc...@4ax.com...
> http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_5ab8c098-eac3-11de-9227-001cc4c03286.html
None of the recreational use statutes can protect against gross negligence,
though. Sounds like the jury (right or wrong) found the Wyoming equivalent
of gross negligence. Also may be overturned by the Judge, or on appeal.
Melanie
Reminds me of when I worked at the stables at a riding camp and one of
the horses the broker brought over was this boxy QH mare named
Bucket...or so we thought. She was a good sensible soul so it all worked
out fine for the kids. We didn't think to question since she was kinda
built like a bucket loader. Now if we has know she was a Buckette...
Melanie who also know a registred QH named Difficult Girl that should
have had a bullet to her head
Princess Pony
Blonde Ambition
John Hasler
> My friend with the riding stable won't even let a horse's name stay
> "Buck" or "Risky" or "Bronco". Michigan has stood behind their horse
> people pretty much with our liability law, but they're very clear
> about the requirements as far as prior knowledge of bad behavior.
Changing the name from "Risky" to "Rick" or somesuch is very likely to
be construed as a deliberate attempt to conceal prior knowledge of bad
behavior.
--
John Hasler Boarding, Lessons, Training
jo...@dancinghorsehill.com Hay, Jumps, Cavallox
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Hunter Hampton
This is what the Wyoming Equine Liability law reads....
Summary: The Wyoming equine liability provisions immunize equine
professionals by declaring that those who engage in equine activities
or any recreational activities assume the inherent risks in the sport
or recreational opportunity. However, actions based upon negligence
of the provider wherein the damage, injury or death is not the result
of an inherent risk of the sport or recreational opportunity shall be
preserved pursuant to W.S. 1-1-109.
Hunter
Bill Kambic
Cheyenne who sent the link. He's trying to get more info.
Note, too, that this was in Federal Court, applying WY law. IIRC (I
never did much Federal litigation) there is a procedure whereby a
Federal judge can certify a question of state law to that state's
supreme court. They are then bound by the answer (assuming it doesn't
conflict with any relevant Federal law). So the Fat Lady may be
waiting in the wings for quite a while on this.
betsey
> "Bill Kambic" <wjkam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:p0tli5ltqf6ka2noc...@4ax.com...
>
> >http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_5a...
>
> None of the recreational use statutes can protect against gross negligence,
> though. Sounds like the jury (right or wrong) found the Wyoming equivalent
> of gross negligence. Also may be overturned by the Judge, or on appeal.
in reading the article, it certainly appears that that is the spin the
attorney is putting on it...that gross negligence can't be protected.
I would like to know more of the background--in some ways the article
does read he said/she said. And, I do wonder if the "trainer" in
question had liability insurance. While that's not really a true
indicator if someone is indeed a trainer, it is an indicator of sorts
that the person intends to be taken somewhat seriously as a trainer.
betsey
The Very Model of Sweetness and Light
There's no evidence there that the equine liability statute
failed in any way, there.
Such laws are not and were never intended to offer any
type of blanket immunity for anyone who is negligent.
Bill Kambic
Light <ye_olde_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:17:21 -0500, Bill Kambic <wjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_5ab8c098-eac3-11de-9227-001cc4c03286.html
>
>There's no evidence there that the equine liability statute
>failed in any way, there.
My statement is absolutely correct. That it failed to protect the
operator is manifest from the judgment. Whether or not that failure
is a cause for alarm or not is the question.
>Such laws are not and were never intended to offer any
>type of blanket immunity for anyone who is negligent.
No, not really. There are a number of these statutes and they work on
a number of levels. Some do protect from ordinary negligence
(functionally, at a minimum) but none protect against gross
negligence.
See http://www.bchw.org/lnt/main/equine_liability_laws.htm
The foundation of these statutes is recognition of the ancient
principle of "assumption of risk." If a person engages in an activity
with a significant risk of harm (equitation, American football,
downhill skiing, mixed martial arts, etc.) then they have no cause for
complaint if they suffer an injury the risk of which is inherent in
the activity.
Whether or not this is protection for a "negligent" person is often an
open question. It does not protect against gross negligence or
willful, wanton, and reckless misconduct.
For more information see
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/armpequineliability.htm
The Very Model of Sweetness and Light
>On Dec 18, 7:55�am, "Jane Saranac" <jsalaci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Bill Kambic" <wjkam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:p0tli5ltqf6ka2noc...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_5a...
>>
>> None of the recreational use statutes can protect against gross negligence,
>> though. �Sounds like the jury (right or wrong) found the Wyoming equivalent
>> of gross negligence. �Also may be overturned by the Judge, or on appeal.
>
>in reading the article, it certainly appears that that is the spin the
What 'spin'?
>attorney is putting on it...that gross negligence can't be protected.
The law was never intended to protect the negligent.
>I would like to know more of the background--in some ways the article
>does read he said/she said. And, I do wonder if the "trainer" in
>question had liability insurance. While that's not really a true
>indicator if someone is indeed a trainer, it is an indicator of sorts
>that the person intends to be taken somewhat seriously as a trainer.
>
>betsey
You'd gladly take money to apply recission to such a victim, wouldn't you.
The fact also remains that the insurer of a horseback rider can refuse to
pay for any injuries which result from equestrian activities.
Deb Sieloff
> "Bill Kambic" <wjkam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:p0tli5ltqf6ka2noc...@4ax.com...
>
> >http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_5a...
>
> My friend with the riding stable won't even let a horse's name stay "Buck"
> or "Risky" or "Bronco". Michigan has stood behind their horse people pretty
> much with our liability law, but they're very clear about the requirements
> as far as prior knowledge of bad behavior.
>
> Cricket
Maybe I better stop DH from introducing my horses as Widow-Maker 1 &
Stupid Widow-Maker 2.
That is what he calls them when visitors ask if they can ride them.
Is that admitting you have dangerous animals?
The ony rides I give any more are lead line - no matter how much
experience the person claims they have.
Deb Sieloff
SE Michigan
The Very Model of Sweetness and Light
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:05:19 -0500, The Very Model of Sweetness and Light <ye_olde_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:17:21 -0500, Bill Kambic <wjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_5ab8c098-eac3-11de-9227-001cc4c03286.html
>>
>>There's no evidence there that the equine liability statute
>>failed in any way, there.
>
>My statement is absolutely correct.
No, your statement is misleading.
The law was never intended to protect the negligent.
The article is about the negligence of the 'trainer'.
The law didn't fail to do as intended at all.
>That it failed to protect the
>operator is manifest from the judgment. Whether or not that failure
>is a cause for alarm or not is the question.
You get alarmed really fast, even over nothing, though.
>
>>Such laws are not and were never intended to offer any
>>type of blanket immunity for anyone who is negligent.
>
>No, not really.
Yes, really.
"The statutes grant immunity for injuries that result from inherent risks of equine
activities, but many in the horse industry believed that the negligence of equine
professionals or sponsors is one of those risks. However, many courts say that negligence
is not an inherent risk of an equine activity and that the statutes do not protect against
injuries resulting from negligence."
"In addition, thirteen equine activity statutes specifically exclude equine professional
or sponsor negligence from the protection of the statute: Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah,
Virginia, and Wyoming."
http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/horselaw/042_uneasy.htm
Notice how it says "Wyoming".
>There are a number of these statutes and they work on
>a number of levels. Some do protect from ordinary negligence
>(functionally, at a minimum) but none protect against gross
>negligence.
So you try to tell yourself that the "natural horsemanship"
acolyte couldn't possibly have been negligent, and was
thus failed by the state statute?
>
>See http://www.bchw.org/lnt/main/equine_liability_laws.htm
>
>["] It does not protect against gross negligence or
>willful, wanton, and reckless misconduct.["]
That's the point. The law never intended to protect
the negligent.
Bill Kambic
Light <ye_olde_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>My statement is absolutely correct.
<sigh>
Read again and this time for comprehension of what I wrote, not
comprehension of what you wanted to read.
>No, your statement is misleading.
>
>The law was never intended to protect the negligent.
Have you read any of the statutes? Try it.
>
>The article is about the negligence of the 'trainer'.
>
>The law didn't fail to do as intended at all.
Open question.
Again, an open question.
Una
value any claims of riding skill offered by a "natural horsemanship"
accolyte.
Una
Cricket
"John Hasler" <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:87fx782...@thumper.dhh.gt.org...
She changes most of their names - often she has two or three "Gingers" or
"Blazes" in at a time...so there's no big red flag with a name change per
se...and it's a matter of the name catching the ear of someone who goes
there looking for trouble.
She doesn't use horses for customers who do bad behavior, but she's had some
customers who go out of their way to instigate some. She just figures one
of those folks is liable to gravitate to a "Risky".
Cricket
John Hasler
> She doesn't use horses for customers who do bad behavior, but she's
> had some customers who go out of their way to instigate some. She
> just figures one of those folks is liable to gravitate to a "Risky".
Getting hurt on "Risky" would, if anything, weaken his case, not
strengthen it. On the other hand, getting hurt on "Rick" and being able
to tell the jury that the horse arrived at the stable bearing the name
"Risky"...
Cricket
Her lawyer knows about it and hasn't complained, but it may be because she
changes most of the names when they come in, to something more descriptive
of that particular horse. Registered horses sometimes excepted, if their
name reflects their registered name.
I think it makes a difference that she changes any iffy sounding name,
including those that are obviously *not* because of bad behavior (like Buck
for a buckskin), and just dumb sounding ones.
Oddly, I don't remember her ever getting a problem horse with a "bad" name -
they're all named Sweetums and Darlin' and Ootsie Cutsie Baby-Pie.
There's often a run of whatever is the popular movie horse name at any given
moment.
Cricket
The Very Model of Sweetness and Light
>...what I wrote...
You claimed the law failed, when it did not.
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:14:17 -0500, Bill Kambic <wjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:05:19 -0500, The Very Model of Sweetness and Light <ye_olde_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:17:21 -0500, Bill Kambic <wjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_5ab8c098-eac3-11de-9227-001cc4c03286.html
>>
>>There's no evidence there that the equine liability statute
>>failed in any way, there.
>
>My statement is absolutely correct.
No, your statement is misleading.
The law was never intended to protect the negligent.
The article is about the negligence of the 'trainer'.
The law didn't fail to do as intended at all.
>That it failed to protect the
Bill Kambic
Light <ye_olde_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:58:05 -0500, Bill Kambic <wjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>...what I wrote...
>
>You claimed the law failed, when it did not.
I did; and it did.
If you want to split hairs and argue with somebody I suggest you go
get a mirror.
The Very Model of Sweetness and Light
>... it did.
No, it didn't. The failure was not with the law.
The failure was with the 'natural horsemanship'
acolyte who was negligent.
>... I suggest ...
You're in no position to do that.
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:58:05 -0500, Bill Kambic <wjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...what I wrote...
You claimed the law failed, when it did not.
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:14:17 -0500, Bill Kambic <wjka...@gmail.com> wrote: