Back in the saddle again: an analysis of Florida's Equine Immunity Act.

• Author: Wites, Marc A.

Horses are an integral part of Americana. Whether through history classes, western movies, or novels such as The Black Stallion and Black Beauty,[1] every American has dreamed of galloping across green pastures on a valiant mount in search of adventure. Many people have satisfied these dreams through trail rides at local stables or summer camps. However, in recent years opportunities for nonhorse owners to ride diminished because of litigation costs that followed horse-related accidents.[2] Like the American cowboy, America's equestrian heritage was quickly disappearing.

Florida, along with 31 other states,[3] responded to this equestrian crisis by enacting equine immunity statutes designed to limit the scope of liability associated with horse-related activities (the "act").[4] The various state statutes are intended to define who is liable for horse-related accidents. Like its counterparts, the Florida act provides immunity from liability caused by the inherent risks of equine activities while excepting from its protection liabilities caused by the equine activity sponsor's negligence. For example, the Florida act should provide immunity for a horse activity sponsor where a horse spooks after being frightened by an unfamiliar object or sound and causes the rider to suffer an injury, but may not provide immunity in this circumstance if the horse activity sponsor paired a novice rider with a horse that required an experienced rider.

While Florida's equine community has generally praised the act, most nonlawyer equestrians likely are unaware that the act's negligence exception greatly reduces the scope of the act's grant of immunity. Recent court decisions from across the country demonstrate that the Florida act's negligence exception may be used to swallow the act's grant of immunity, particularly where suit is brought by an inexperienced rider. Although Florida's courts have yet to address the act's substantive provisions, these decisions provide insight to the true value of the act to Florida's equine industry.

This article analyzes the Florida act, summarizes its major components, examines recent decisions from across the country interpreting equine immunity statutes, and analyzes the weakness created by the act's negligence exception. Finally, the article offers suggestions to fill the gaps in the Florida act's grant of immunity which provides that:

[A]n equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person, which shall include a corporation or partnership, shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities and,... no participant nor any participant's representative shall have any claim against or recover from any equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or any other person for injury, loss, damage, or death of the participant resulting from any of the inherent risks of equine activities.[5]

The act's grant of immunity is very broad and defines "equine activity" to include everything from horse shows, fox hunting, and trail riding to horse shoeing, veterinarian treatment, and the inspection of sale horses.[6] Similarly, "equine activity sponsors" consist of individuals, groups, clubs, partnerships, corporations, stables, farms, and promoters of such facilities.[7] "Equine professionals" include horse trainers, riding instructors, and those providing horse care and equipment for profit.[8] The act does not apply to the horse racing industry.[9]

Most importantly, the act's definition of the "inherent risks of equine activities" acknowledges the many risks associated with horses:

(a) The propensity of equines to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm, or death to persons on or around them.

(b) The unpredictability of an equine's reaction to such things as sounds, sudden movement, and unfamiliar objects, persons and animals.

(c) Certain hazards such as surface and subsurface conditions.

(d) Collisions with other equines or objects.

(e) The potential of a participant to act in a negligent manner that may contribute to injury to the participant or others, such as failing to maintain control over the animal or not acting within his or her ability.[10]

The act's descriptive listing of equine risks applies to both amateur and professional participants in equine activities regardless of whether the participant is charged for such activities.[11]

The act, however, does not offer blanket immunity for horse-related liability. To avail themselves of the act's privileges, equine activity sponsors and professionals must post a visible warning sign[12] and ask the participant to sign a written document,[13] both of which must state that:

Under Florida law, an equine activity sponsor or equine professional is not liable for an injury to, or the death of, a participant in equine activities resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities.[14]

The act provides that a document executed by the participant that contains the required warning may be used instead of posting the sign.[15]

The act excepts from its protection negligent acts, such as where the equine activity sponsor:[16]

(a) [p]rovided the equipment or tack,[17] and knew or should have known that the equipment or tack was faulty, and it was so faulty as to be totally or partially responsible for the injury.[18]

or

(b) [p]rovided the equine and failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, or to determine the ability of the participant to safely manage the particular equine based on the participant's representation of his ability.[19]

The act further excepts injuries that are the result of intentional acts and willful or wanton disregard for the participant's safety,[20] as well as injuries caused by dangerous latent conditions on land of which the equine sponsor or professional was aware but failed to warn.[21]

Case Analysis

Florida courts have yet to interpret the substantive provisions of the act.[22] However, courts in Colorado, Washington, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Georgia have addressed liability issues arising under similar equine immunity acts. These cases, brought by riders with varying amounts of experience, show that courts do not always apply the acts with an even hand.

Two courts have applied the acts to cases brought by experienced riders. Georgia first examined its equine immunity act in Muller v. English, 472 S.E.2d 448 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). In Muller, the plaintiff, an experienced rider, was kicked in the leg by another rider's horse while fox hunting with a hunt...