Horse Law-a Look at the Equine Statute and Liability Law
| Jurisdiction | Colorado,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 41 No. 7 Pg. 95 |
| Pages | 95 |
| Publication year | 2012 |
2012, July , Pg. 95. Horse Law-A Look at the Equine Statute and Liability Law
July 2012
Vol. 41, No. 7 [Page95]
Tort and Insurance Law
Tort and Insurance Law articles provide information concerning current tort law issues and insurance issues addressed by practitioners representing either plaintiffs or defendants in tort cases. They also address issues of insurance coverage, regulation, and bad faith.
Coordinating Editor
William P. Godsman of the Law Office of William Godsman, Denver-(303) 455-6900, wgodsman@qwestoffice.net
About the Author
Jordan Lipp is a partner with Davis Graham and Stubbs, LLP in Denver-jordan.lipp@dgslaw.com.
Colorado has an equine statute that addresses when claims involving equine and llama activities can and cannot be made. This article examines Colorado's equine statute and the case law on claims related to equine and llama accidents.
Colorado is horse country, so it is fitting that Colorado has a statutory scheme to address equine activities in the state. This statutory scheme often is referred to as the equine statute.(fn1) It is one of several statutes that offer liability protections, sometimes coupled with specific obligations, for certain recreational and sporting activities.(fn2) Colorado's equine statute has become a model for equine statutes in other states.(fn3)
The equine statute provides exemption from civil liability to those involved in equine/llama activities for injuries resulting from inherent risks of equine/llama activities. The protections of the equine statute apply to a wide range of horseback riding and llama services-from those leading guiding trips to those providing the horses.(fn4) However, the equine statute carves out nine exceptions to this broad immunity, and places certain obligations on those providing horseback riding and llama services.
This article addresses the equine statute and the cases both interpreting it and dealing with liability for horseback riding accidents and other accidents related to horses and llamas. The article begins by discussing the statutory history and intent of the equine statute. Next, to provide context to the immunity, exceptions, and other portions of the equine statute, the article provides definitions of the major individuals and entities covered under the equine statute. It then reviews the protections of the equine statute and the case law interpreting those protections. In the subsequent section, the article addresses the exceptions to the protections offered by the equine statute. Next, the article reviews the obligations on those providing equine and llama activities. Finally, the article discusses the interplay between the equine statute and liability releases, which are ubiquitous in the guiding/horse-for-rent portion of the industry.
Statutory History and Intent
Before the passage of the equine statute, the liability of equine professionals and others involved in equine activities was governed by the common law.(fn5) The equine statute now abrogates the common law.(fn6)
The Colorado Legislature originally passed the equine statute in 1990, and it became effective on July 1, 1990.(fn7) The original equine statute applied only to equines-defined as "a horse, pony, mule, donkey, or hinny."(fn8)
The General Assembly explained the purpose of the equine statute at the beginning of the statute.(fn9) The General Assembly found that "persons who participate in equine activities may incur injuries as a result of the risks involved in such activities."(fn10) The legislature further found that "the state and its citizens derive numerous economic and personal benefits from such activities."(fn11) Therefore, it was the legislative intent "to encourage equine activities by limiting the civil liability of those involved in such activities."(fn12)
The General Assembly has amended the equine statute on two occasions. In 1992, the legislature added "Doctor of Veterinary Medicine" to the individuals and entities protected from suit.(fn13) Second, and of broader impact, in 1992, the legislature added protections for llama activities.(fn14) The definition of llamas under the new provisions includes "llamas, alpacas, guanacos, and vicunas."(fn15) As a general matter, activities involving llamas were given the same protections as those involving equine.(fn16)
Definitions of the Important Individuals and Entities
To understand the statutory protections and obligations under the equine statute, it is critical to know the definitions of the major individuals and entities described in the equine statute. There are four categories of defined individuals and entities, which are the ones most likely to be defendants in an equine-related lawsuit: (1) an equine professional; (2) a llama professional; (3) an equine activity sponsor; and (4) a llama activity sponsor. The most likely plaintiff in a lawsuit, a participant, also is defined by the equine statute. Further, the definitions of equine and llama activities are critical to understanding the nature and effect of the statute. These terms are discussed, in turn, below.
Equine professional. An equine professional is one who, for compensation, (1) instructs a participant on riding, driving, or being a passenger on an equine, (2) rents to a participant an equine for the purpose of riding, driving, or being a passenger, or (3) rents equipment or tack to a participant.(fn17)
Llama professional. The definition of a llama professional is the same as the definition of an equine professional, except that it applies to llamas as opposed to equines.(fn18)
Equine activity sponsor. An equine activity sponsor encompasses a broader group of individuals and entities than an equine professional.(fn19) In a nutshell, those who sponsor, organize, or provide the facilities for equine activities are equine activity sponsors under the statute.(fn20)
Llama activity sponsor. The definition of a llama activity sponsor mirrors the definition of an equine activity sponsor, except that it applies to llamas as opposed to equines.(fn21)
Participant. The definition of a participant is fairly broad. A participant includes any person who engages in equine activities or llama activities. The definition of equine activities and llama activities is discussed next. A person is a participant regardless of whether he or she is an amateur or professional or whether the person pays a fee for the activity.(fn22)
Equine activities and llama activities. Equine and llama activities are defined broadly and include, among other things, riding, hunting, inspecting, training, placing horseshoes, boarding, instructing, and competitions.(fn23) Published case law has not delineated the full reach of these terms, but there is no published case where a court analyzed the equine statute and found that an activity did not fall within the statutory definition of equine and/or llama activities. The statute does carve out one exception to these broad definitions: being a spectator at an equine activity or llama activity is not considered engaging in an equine or llama activity, unless the spectator is in an unauthorized area and in immediate proximity to the equine or llama activity.(fn24)
Claims Barred by the Equine Statute
Subsection 3 of the equine statute provides that, with the exceptions in subsection 4 (addressed below), no participant or his or her representative can make any claims against certain individuals and entities for any injury, loss, damage, or death of the participant from the inherent risks of equine and llama activities.(fn25) Because the equine statute's grant of limited immunity is in abrogation of the common law, the immunity provisions are subject to strict construction.(fn26) To fully understand this statutory exemption...
To continue reading
Request your trial