Horses and the Law
THE RUNAWAY HORSE - OWNER V. FAIR ASSOCIATION - WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

Disclaimer - This article is intended as general discussion and information on the topic covered, and is not to be construed as rendering legal advice. If legal advice is needed, you should contact an attorney. This article may not be reprinted or reproduced in any manner without prior written permission of the author.

On December 17, 2003, the Iowa Supreme Court decided a case dealing with liability in a runaway case at a horse show held at a county fair. This article will analyze the opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court in Hynes v. Clay County Fair Association, 672 N.W. 2d. 764, 2003.

The Clay County Fair Association is an Iowa Corporation, which manages an annual fair in Spencer, Iowa. As part of the fair activities, horse shows and events are held. Patricia Hynes attended the fair with her two daughters and their children. The daughters and grandchildren enjoyed the fair while Patricia worked in the church concession stand. Around 3:30 p.m. Patricia completed her work at the concession stand and was going home.

Patricia was heading for the exit gate and was in the area of four cattle barns and a swine barn. She was walking with numerous other pedestrians in a designated walk area and was not involved with or conscious of any animal activities being conducted in the immediate area. Signs were hung about the fair grounds, which stated as follows:

“Exercise care and caution near livestock. Do not touch animals. You are responsible for your own and your childrens’ safety.”

Lynn Rae Robbins was present at the Fair that day and participated in a horse show involving driving her horse and cart in a class. She had completed the class without incident and was leaving the arena on her way to the horse barn when Robbins heard a very loud popping noise, which scared the horse resulting in the horse bolting and running away. Robbins screamed for people to get out of the way and fair goers scattered to avoid the running horse, but Patricia and three other persons were hit and injured by the runaway horse.

Patricia and her husband filed a lawsuit against the Clay County Fair Association and Lynn Rae Robbins. Lynn filed bankruptcy, thereby removing her from the lawsuit but Patricia proceeded with the suit against the Fair Association. Patricia argued that the Fair Association was negligent or careless in failing to protect her and other patrons against out-of-control animals.

The Trial Court found the Fair Association was not responsible because of the Iowa Equine Activity Statute. Iowa Code §673.2 was applicable in providing immunity to the Fair Association. The Trial Court reasoned that Patricia was a spectator as defined in the Statute and was alert or alerted to inherent risks of domesticated animal activities.

Patricia’s attorney did not agree with the Trial Court and appealed her case to the Iowa Supreme Court who agreed with Patricia and reversed the lower court, thereby allowing Patricia to proceed with her lawsuit. The Iowa Supreme Court began its analysis agreeing with the lower court that Patricia was indeed a spectator as defined in Iowa’s law. A spectator is defined as a “person who is in the vicinity of a domesticated animal activity, but who is not a participant.” There appears to be little question that Patricia was a spectator as defined by law.

The point of disagreement was over an exclusion to immunity under the Iowa law, Section 673.2 (5) which reads as follows:

(Immunity will not apply if) “5. A domesticated animal activity which causes damages, injury, or death to a spectator who is in a place where a reasonable person who is alert to inherent risks of domesticated animal activities would not expect a domesticated animal activity to occur.”

In applying this exclusion the Iowa Supreme Court was aware that the Iowa law defined inherent risk of a domesticated animal activity to include the following:

“A. The propensity of a domesticated animal to behave in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable to result in damages to property, or injury or death to a person.

B. Risks generally associated withanactivitywhich may include injuries caused by bucking, biting, stumbling, rearing, trampling, scratching, pecking, falling, kicking or butting.

C. The unpredictable reaction by a domesticated animal to unfamiliar conditions, including, but not limited to, a sudden movement; loud noise; and unfamiliar environment; or the introduction of unfamiliar persons, animals, or objects.”

In applying the above definitions the Iowa Supreme Court was not convinced that a reasonable person alert to the defined risks as stated, would expect a runaway horse to be running down a designated pedestrian walkway as the facts in this case. The Court also noted that another exclusion, 673.2 (4) would also potentially apply and states:

“A domesticated animal activity which occurs in a place designated or intended by an animal activity sponsor as a place for persons who are not participants to be present.”

The Court felt that the pedestrian walkway at the county fair which was not a place where animal activity was to occur provided a safety zone for the people and it was not reasonable for someone in this safety zone, even if they are aware or alert of the defined risks as stated, to expect a runaway horse to be present. As such, the Supreme Court permitted Patricia to proceed with her lawsuit against the Fair Association.

This case presents an interesting lesson to fair associations and show sponsors. The Iowa Supreme Court has interpreted the exemptions in the Iowa Equine Activity Statute to be inapplicable to situations involving injury or death where the injured party is in an area that he or she can reasonably expect to be secure from domesticated animal activity. Fair associations and show sponsors should take a close look at their current activities and determine if there is a way to make the conditions, which presently exist, even safer. It appears, at least in Iowa, the need to protect the public includes protection from a runaway out-of-control hitch!

Enough legal talk—it’s time to hitch horses!

Ken is a practicing attorney in Myerstown, Pennsylvania, where a good bit of hispracticein-volves negligence cases. Ken and his wife, Karen, own Sunny Hill Farm Belgians, and they have been exhibiting their six-horse hitch for the past few years at most major shows in the east.