Page 94 - 2305_full

92 SIDELINES MAY 2011 FOR HORSE PEOPLE • ABOUT HORSE PEOPLE

made the determination that the riding club admitted to having sponsored the horse show at which the Plaintiff was injured. Thus the Court found that to reverse the lower court’s decision it only needed to determine whether there was evidence that the horse show had a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and that the Plaintiff had in fact been injured as a result of the failure to make the premises reasonably safe.

The Appeals Court found that an occupier of a premises which is used for athletic events must maintain the premises in reasonably safe condition and provide both equipment and services necessary to minimize or prevent injury to others from conditions which might cause damage. The Evangeline Riding Club, as a sponsor of the horse show, was the occupier of the premises. The Court found that as an occupier of the premises, the club was subject to liability under both negligence and/ or strict liability (strict liability is a higher standard of care imposed on the parties than the standard of care imposed by the courts in cases of ordinary negligence.)

The Appeals Court found that the club may have been negligent in failing to either move the guide wire or minimally to warn horse show participants of its location. The Appeals Court also found that the horse show sponsor may have also have had a duty to provide proper lighting. Specifically, the Appeals Court found there were several genuine issues of material fact which should have been decided by the Trier of Fact (the Trier of Fact decides issues of fact not law, in a jury trial those would be issues left to the jury) and as a result the trial court should not have granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. Based on this, the Appeals Court reversed and remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Conclusion

Even though this case was decided prior to Louisiana enacting a statute limiting liability for equine sponsors, under the statute an equine sponsor can still be liable for injuries resulting from a condition of the property. The Louisiana Statute specifically holds sponsors, who are either landowners or lessees, liable for injuries which are sustained as a result of dangerous latent conditions which the sponsor knew or should have known to exist and for which warning signs were not conspicuously posted.

E Q U I N E L A W

Liability of Horse Show Sponsors

By Lisa Hollister, Esq.

Horse show sponsors have a legal duty to maintain the grounds where they hold their sponsored event in a safe manner. If the failure to do so causes an accident, the show sponsor can be held liable. This is true even when the horse show sponsor does not own the property and is merely a lessee. Today most states have equine activity acts that protect horse show sponsors from some but not all liability. The landowner, as well as the lessee, still have a duty to warn both spectators and equine participants about dangerous latent conditions which are known or should have been known by the land owner and/or the horse show sponsor.

Bonnie Uhler v. Evangeline Riding Club et al (1988)

While exercising her horse during a horse show which was sponsored by the Evangeline Riding Club, plaintiff Bonnie Uhler struck a guide wire that she had not been warned about and was injured. As a result of the injury, she sued the horse show that was leasing the property, the parish which rented the facility to the show and all of the defendants’ respective insurance companies. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the riding club as well as all of the other defendants (summary judgment to dismiss all or part of a case may be granted to a moving party when there is no genuine issue of material fact and thus that party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.) The Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case based on a lack of factual evidence.

Appeals Court

Before making its determination regarding whether the trial court appropriately granted summary judgment to the defendant, the Appeals Court first had to review whether or not the trial court had abused its discretion by refusing to grant a continuance. The request for a continuance concerned the request for additional time to obtain and present evidence on behalf of the parish (and its insurers). Specifically, the parish wanted to submit evidence that the club did in fact sponsor a horse show on the days in question. Presumably the parish was attempting to insulate itself from liability by claiming that Evangeline Riding Club, not the parish, was responsible for any damages that might be found by a court. The Appeals Court held that the trial court was correct in denying the continuance and stated that all of the parties had ample time to make their filings prior to the court granting summary judgment. The Appeals Court next looked at the filings and

Lisa Hollister is an attorney practicing in Cincinnati, Ohio. Questions for Ms. Hollister’s column can be addressed to twinbridgefarm@aol. com