ILNews

COA addresses equine statute for first time

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ruling on the state’s Equine Activity Statute for the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the statute barred a woman’s claim for injuries during a horse competition.

Teresa Perry, an adult member of the Whitely County 4-H Clubs’ Equine Advisory Board, helped select the horses that were shown at a competition in the Show Barn. Horses weren’t allowed in the Show Barn except for this competition; they generally were in the Horse Barn, which is wider than the Show Barn.

When trying to help a child turn a horse around who was agitated, Perry was kicked in the knee and injured.

She sued because she believed the 4-H Club was negligent in holding the competition in the smaller Show Barn because the horses were closer together and since the horses aren’t used to the barn, they were more likely to get spooked.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the club based in part on the Equine Activity Statute, which provides that an equine activity sponsor is granted immunity under the statute if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions is that a sign must be posted warning that the grounds or building is the site of equine activity.

The 4-H Club had these signs on all entrances to the Horse Barn and Perry acknowledged that she had seen the signs. The club introduced photographic evidence of the signs and established a prima facie case it maintained the proper signs. Perry failed to come forward with evidence the signs were deficient, the appellate court ruled in Teresa Perry v. Whitley County 4-H Clubs Inc., No. 92A03-1002-CT-101.

The appellate court also had to determine whether Perry’s injury resulted from an inherent risk of equine activities. There are several exceptions listed to the immunity spelled out in the statute, such as faulty equipment, but none of those applied in this case. The judges looked to other jurisdictions to determine whether and to what extent an equine activity sponsor may be liable for simple negligence alleged to have caused injury to a participant.

Indiana’s statute is silent on the place of sponsor negligence in the overall scheme of equine liability, noted Judge Margret Robb. But the judges concluded the General Assembly didn’t intend for the statute to abrogate the cause of action for common-law negligence of an activity sponsor.

“…if none of the Section 2(b) exceptions apply, then an equine activity sponsor is not liable for failing to use reasonable care to mitigate an already inherent risk of equine activities that ultimately resulted in a participant’s injury,” she wrote.

Perry’s injury falls under the statutory definition of inherent risks of equine activities.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT