Equine Activity Liability Acts ("EALAs"), now enacted in 44 states, provide various levels of immunity to equine professionals, equine activity sponsors and others for injuries sustained by individuals participating in equine activities. As explained in SSHBEA's Fall Issue article, Equine Activity Liability Acts - Helpful but Not Foolproof, these statues also set forth several exceptions to the immunity provided. These exceptions include, but are not limited to:1) the "faulty-tack' exception; 2) the "mismatched horse and rider" exception; 3) the "dangerous latent condition exception; and 4) the "wanton disregard for rider safety" exception. However, these are not the only areas where gaps in the protection provided by the statutes may occur.

As with any statute, EALAs are subject to court interpretation. While the language of a statute may seem clear and unambiguous, there often are varying interpretations of the language of a statute or of the legislature's intent in creating a statute. (Especially with new statutes such as the EALAs.) Often this variation results in gaps or loopholes in the protection seemingly provided by a statute. This article will present two court cases that have had this effect on two states' EALAS.

In Carl vs Resnick, 714N.E.2d 1 (III. Ct.App. 1999), the plaintiff was riding her horse on a trail ride in the Cook County Forest Preserve. During the ride, the plaintiff met the defendant, who was riding along with a friend. While the three riders stopped to talk, the defendant's horse kicked the plaintiff. The plaintiff then sued the defendant for her injuries. In response to the lawsuit, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on the immunity provisions of the Illinois EALA. The trial court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the case. However, the plantiff appealed the decision.

On appeal, the issue presented to the Court was whether the Illinois EALA applied to the specific facts of the case. The plaintiff argued that the statute did not apply because she was not "engaged in an equine activity" as defined by the language of the statute because she was riding her own horse at the time of the incident (as opposed to riding a horse "provided" to her from another). Specifically, the plaintiff relied on language in the statute that defined "equine activity," in part, as "riding. . . an equine belonging to another, whether or not the owner has received monetary consideration."

The defendant, on the other hand, argued EALA applied because, by the defendant's interpretation of the different section of the statue, the EALA was designed to apply when a person merely engages in the act of "riding an equine," regardless of who provides the equine. However, the appellate court agreed with the plaintiff's interpretation and concluded that the "plaintiff's complaint against defendant was not barred by the Equine Act unless plaintiff's recreational riding of her own horse on a public trail was one of the limited activities sought to be encouraged by the Act." Id.at 3.

The appellate court's ruling in this case clearly revealed a loophole or gap in the immunity provided by Illinois EALA. This interpretation of the statutes language would probably not have been contemplated by someone casually reading the statute, as most would concluded that riding your own horse constitutes participating in an equine activity. However, this case presents a good example of how varying interpretations of language can affect the seemingly foolproof protection provided by a statute.

A second case that reveals how gaps in the EALA coverage can arise, based on varying interpretations of language and a review of legislative intent, is Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 926 R2d 47 (Az. Ct. App.1 1998). In Bothell, a ten year old child was injured while leading a horse at a riding stable. Specifically, the child asked the stable operator if she could take a corral to a grassy area to graze . The stable operator agreed and directed the child to get a halter and lead rope for the horse. The child did so, placed the halter and lead rope on the horse and began to lead the horse out of the corral. While opening the gate, the child wrapped the lead around her left hand. Another horse in the corral then approached the child, apparently became scared and ran through the lead rope, seriously injuring the child's hand. The child's parents then filed suit against the stable alleging negligent supervision, training and instructions. The defendant stable moved for summary judgment based in part of the Arizona EALA. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case; however, the plaintiff appealed. The issue presented to the appellate court was whether the EALA applied to the specific facts of the case.

The Arizona EALA provides, the pertinent part, that "[a]n equine owner or an agent of an equine owner who regardless of consideration allows another person to take control of an equine is not liable for an injury to or death of the person if: 1) the person has taken control of the equine from the owner or agent when the injury or death occurs." In this case, the court noted that the parties could not provide, nor could the court find, "any relevant legislative records indicating an intent to immunize stable owners from claims of negligent supervision, like plaintiffs', which do not involve horseback riding or activities directly relating thereto. As a result, the court concluded, based on its interpretation of the statute, that the statute did not apply as 1) the child had not taken control of the horse she was leading or of the horse that apparently caused her injuries; and 2) the statute did not apply to non-riding activities like those the child was engaged in at the time of the accident.

Once again, for most horse professionals or owners it would be hard to imagine that non-riding activities such as leading a horse is not considered "taking control" of a horse or participating in an equine activity as determined in this case. However, each state's EALA is slightly different and because the EALA statutes are relatively new, they are subject to varying and possibly even conflicting interpretations by the courts. How can you protect yourself from such potential gaps or loopholes? There is no foolproof method; however, with a thorough understanding of your state's EALA (including any cases interpreting the EALA) and carefully drafted liability releases, it is possible to reduce the risk of being found liable for injuries sustained by others from horse-related activities. Additionally because of the risk associated with exceptions to and gaps in the protection provided by EALAs, it is more important than ever to obtain liability insurance to protect from potential judgments. While the EALAs are a step in the right direction, since they protect the stability of horse industries by encouraging individuals to provide equine services to the general public, I hope this information has provided you with a glimpse of some of the problems that can arise by relying too heavily on the protection seemingly provided by these statutes.

lhill@millermartin.com

The information provided by this article is for general information only and may be considered advertising under applicable court rules. It is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. With regard to specific circumstances, each person should seek the advice of his or her attorney. Lynda Hill and Miller & Martin, LLP do not assume an obligation to provide information or advice through this article or in any other manner unless we specifically agree with a client to do so. Certification as an Equine Law Specialist is not currently available in Tennessee.