Equine Law Blog

Case 1:

The plaintiff and her husband attended a horse auction.  Her husband had a bid card, but she did not. She left her seat to use the restroom but upon her return was accidentally struck and injured by a shying team of draft horses in the corridor.  Did the Iowa Equine Activity Liability Act apply to her case?

The Ruling: No – the Law Does Not Apply

Iowa’s statute applies to "a participant" who was "engaged in a domestic animal activity," but an Iowa Federal Court held that plaintiff's participation was more in the nature of a spectator than a "participant" because she merely purchased a seat at the auction. The court found that her husband, by comparison, would have qualified as a "participant" at the auction because he attended with an interest in making a purchase there.

[The case was Duban v. Waverly Sales Co., 2013 WL 684187 (N.D. Iowa 2/25/2013), construing Iowa’s Domesticated Animal Activity Liability Act, Iowa Code chapter 673.1.]

Case 2:

The plaintiff was a horse groom and barn manager who was visiting her father at a stable.  While someone at the stable [the defendant] was unloading a horse from a trailer, the horse spooked, knocked the defendant to the ground, and kicked the plaintiff in the head when she approached the area. Her lawsuit claimed, among other things, that the defendant negligently tried to handle an untrained and unbroken horse. Was she a "participant" such that Ohio's equine liability act applied to her?

The Ruling:  Yes – the Law Applies

Courts disagreed as the case worked its way up the appellate stages.  The trial court held that the plaintiff was a “participant,” for whom the law applies, because Ohio’s law included “spectator” status within its definition of “participant,” and evidence showed that the plaintiff was present and “'noticed' the defendant unloading the horse” from the trailer. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the case because it was barred by that state's Equine Activity Liability Act.  An Ohio appellate court reversed, finding that plaintiff was not a “participant” since she was not necessarily watching or assisting the defendant when the incident occurred.

Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court had the final word and generally agreed with the trial court.  It held that “one who purposely places himself or herself in a location where equine activities are occurring and who sees such an activity is a ‘spectator’ and hence an ‘equine activity participant’ within the meaning of [the Ohio equine activities immunity statute].” The court recognized that Ohio’s law offered no definition of “spectator” but applied a “common” meaning and dictionary definitions. Applying a somewhat broad definition of “spectator,” the court reasoned that “given the purpose of the statute, we conclude that a person must deliberately put himself or herself in a position of exposure to the ‘inherent risk’ of proximity to horses before immunity can apply.” Under this interpretation, the plaintiff qualified as a “spectator” and, therefore, a “participant” under the law, and the Equine Activity Liability Act barred her lawsuit.

[The case was Smith v. Landfair,  984 N.E.2d 1016 (Ohio 2012), construing Ohio's equine activities immunity statute, O.R.C. § 2305.321.]