70 SIDELINES FEBRUARY 2012
FOR HORSE PEOPLE • ABOUT HORSE PEOPLE
E
Q
U
I
N
E
L
A
W
California Court Holds
No Agency Liability in
Riding Injury
By Lisa Hollister, Esq.
Commonly horse owners will have someone who is not
fnancially reimbursed ride their horses to keep them in
shape. The beneft for the rider is a free ride, the chance to
show a pony of a certain quality or just weekend recreation.
The question in such cases is: is the rider legally considered
an agent of the owner and thus cause the owner additional
liability in the event a third party is harmed while the rider is
in charge of the horse or horses?
Ioan v. Koenig, H035860 (CAAPP6)
Facts
In this unpublished California case, horse owners Daren
and Sandra Young allowed a friend, Elizabeth Koenig, to ride
their horses on the trails without them in order to keep the
horses exercised. At times Koenig asked if she could allow
one of her friends to ride the Young’s horses with her. Re-
peatedly, Koenig was told that it was fne for her to have a
friend ride the extra horse as long as she made sure that the
friend was able to control the horse before they rode on the
trails. Specifcally, the Youngs asked that Koenig frst have
the friend ride in the riding ring to make sure that the rider got
along with the horse. Additionally, Koenig was told to always
start a novice rider on the Youngs’ horse named Baby.
The Youngs complied with the Koenig’s requests when
she took her friend Otilia Ioan riding. The frst time Ioan rode
the Youngs’ horses she was put on Baby and rode for a short
time in the ring until Koenig was confdent that Ioan could
handle the horse. At that time the friends went for a trail ride.
At some time during the trail ride the friends switched horses
and Ioan rode the horse, Midnight, while Koenig rode Baby.
No mishaps occurred during that frst ride.
When Koenig and Ioan went on their second trail ride,
Ioan asked to ride Midnight because Midnight had smoother
gaits than Baby. Koenig was slightly concerned because
Midnight had not been ridden for a week so she got on the
horse frst to make sure it was quiet enough for her friend.
After determining that Midnight was quiet, the two switched
horses. Unfortunately, while going uphill during the trail ride
Midnight began going faster than Ioan could handle. She
pulled on the reins and the horse responded by making a
sharp turn and started down the hill. At that point Ioan lost
her balance and fell off breaking her neck and becoming a
permanent quadriplegic.
Ioan’s legal action against Koenig and the Youngs
Ioan fled an action against both Koenig and the Youngs
for both negligence and strict liability, making claims that
Koenig was the Youngs’ agent or employee and as such they
were vicariously liable for Koenig’s conduct. At the basis of
the claim was whether the horse Midnight had dangerous
propensities that were likely to cause injury to a rider such as
Ioan. Koenig and the Youngs moved for and were granted
Summary Judgment on the bases that under the defense
Assumption of the Risk the court should grant a dismissal in
the defendants’ favor (a court can grant summary judgment
to defendant when the defendant shows that there are no
triable issues of material fact and as a result the defendant
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law). Specifcally
the court found that since the Youngs were unaware of any
abnormally dangerous propensity possessed by Midnight they could
not have increased the risk inherent in the activity of horseback
riding. Ioan then fled an appeal from the judgment.
Appeals Court
Vicarious Liability
Ioan claimed that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether
Koenig was the Youngs’ agent because she kept the horses
exercised. Ioan further based her claim of agency relationship
in the fact that the Youngs required that Koenig perform pre-ride
as well as post-ride care of the horses, assess her guest’s riding
skills and control the tempo of the trail ride. Reviewing the legal
defnition of agent the Appeals Court found that to create an agency
relationship upon which liability can rest, “the principal must in some
manner indicate that the agent is to act for him and the agent must
act or agree to act on his behalf and subject to his control”. While
the court stated that no particular words are necessary to create an
agency, “control may not be inferred merely from the fact that one
person’s act benefts another.”
The Youngs refuted Ioan’s claims of liability based on agency by
claiming that Koenig was only a friend who they allowed to ride their
horses as well as take her friends riding on their horses. The only
services which she performed were related to the care associated
with riding the horses. The only control placed on Koenig was that
she start all beginning riders on Baby and that she make sure that
the rider was able to control the horse that they were on before
going out on the trails. The Appeals Court found that these terms
placed on Koenig’s use of the horses did not rise to the level of
control necessary to create an agency relationship between the
defendants.
Negligence
Ioan made a claim that even if the Youngs were not liable because
an agent acted negligently, they could be held directly liable under
a claim of negligence. Under this claim, Ioan alleged that they not
only supplied the horses but they were also aware that Midnight had
dangerous propensities which were above those associated with
the ordinary risk of riding a horse and that they failed to warn Ioan
or have Ioan warned of Midnight’s dangerous propensities. The
Appeals Court held that horseback riding is a dangerous activity and
the most apparent risk is the possibility of being thrown off the horse.
As a result when one rides a horse they assume the risk of falling
off and being harmed. The Court further found that the individual
providing the horse only owes the horseback rider two duties: “1.
Not to intentionally injure the rider and 2. To not increase the risk
of harm beyond what is inherent in (horseback riding) by engaging
in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of
the ordinary activity involved in the sport.” The Appeals Court found
that the Youngs produced suffcient evidence showing that they
had no knowledge that Midnight had any dangerous propensities.
Based on this, the appeals court found that the trial court correctly
held in favor of the defendants.
Conclusion
This case was tried in California, a state
which unlike most states, does not have an
equine activity act protecting horse owners
and equine providers from liability. If this
case had been brought in almost any other
state in the U.S. there would have been an
additional layer of protection for both the
Youngs and Koenig.
Lisa Hollister is an attorney practicing
in Cincinnati, Ohio. Questions for Ms.
Hollister’s column can be addressed to
twinbridgefarm@aol.com