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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT