About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

3 Animal L. 201 (1997)
The Rise of Equine Activity Liability Acts

handle is hein.journals/anim3 and id is 211 raw text is: THE RISE OF EQUINE ACTIVITY LIABILITY ACTS By DR. SHARLEN A. McEvoy* The law regarding animals can also affect those who own, use, or enjdy them. In recent years, the equine industry has become more vulnerable to liability as a result of recent court decisions undermining the traditional Viezo that persons who participate in horseback riding assume the risk of infries they incur. This paper examines six significant cases, as well as statutes passed by state legislatures to meet the challenges posed by these decisions. 7he legis- lative history and debate over the passage of a Connecticut bill are examined to illustrate the policy behind equine liability acts. I. INTRODUCTION For many years, courts have held that one who provides recreational activities owes no duty to protect customers from injuries resulting from the inherent risks of those activities.' This assumption of the risk doctrine has acted as a bulwark against liability until courts developed the princi- ple of secondary assumption of the risk which some courts declare is only a component of comparative fault.2 This paper will discuss six cases,3-Harrold v. Rolling JRanch,4 Galardi v. Sea Horse Riding Cltb,6 Bien v. Fox Meadow Farms,6 Tlzornhill v. Deka-Di Riding Stables,7 Tanker v. North Crest Equestrian Center,8 Guido v. Koopman,9-which have left the equine industry uncertain about the law regarding recrea- tional facilities. The article also considers equine liability laws which * Associate Professor of Business Law at Fairfield University, Fairfield, CT; BA, Alber- tus Magnus College; LA-, Trinity College; J.D., University of Connecticut School of Law; Ph.D., University of California at Los Angeles. She is also a practicing attorney. 1 See, REsrATEMENT OF ToRTs § 496A (1965). 2 See, e.g., Galardi v. Sea Horse Riding Club, 20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 270 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). 3 See also Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co., 166 N.E. 173 (N.Y. 1999) (plaintiff sued an amusement park for injuries suffered on a ride. Judge Cardozo held that by embark- ing on the ride, the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury. The court applied the principle of volenti nonfit injuria, one who takes part in such a sport accepts the dangers inherent in it). See Julie L Fershtman, Equine Activity Liability Statutes, fm A.eiuA1 NATO.AL Co.,- FERENCE ON EQUNE LAW (May 1994) (transcript available in the University of Kentucky Col- lege of Law, Office of Continuing Legal Education). 4 Harrold v. Rolling J Ranch, 23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 671 (Cal. Ct App. 1993). 5 Galardi, 20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 270. 6 Bien v. Fox Mfeadow Farms, 574 N.E.2d 1311 (ilL App. CL 1991). 7 Thornhill v. Deka-Di Riding Stables, 643 N.E.2d 983 (Ind. CL App. 1994). 8 Tanker v. North Crest Equestrian Center, 621 N.E.2d 59 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). 9 Guido v. Xoopman,2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 437 (Cal. CL App. 1991). [2011

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most