Under California’s equine inherent risk law, people generally assume the natural risks associated with horseback riding since horses are innately dangerous animals. However, horse owners can still be liable for injuries their horses cause if they acted with gross negligence, recklessness, or intention.
By filing an equine liability lawsuit against the horse owner who caused your injuries, you may be able to get financial compensation for your:
- Medical bills,
- Loss of income,
- Loss of consortium,
- Costs of rehabilitation and physical therapy,
- Pain & suffering.
Below, our California personal injury attorneys address frequently asked questions about equine liability laws and the injuries you may have suffered:
- 1. Injuries from Horses
- 2. Who can I sue?
- 3. Are horses “inherently dangerous”?
- 4. What about liability waivers?
- Additional Reading
Also listen to our informative podcast:
1. Injuries from Horses
Due to the inherent risk of equine activity, common injuries associated with horseback riding include:
- Neck and spinal cord injuries,
- Injuries to the face,
- Concussions, traumatic brain injury, and other head injuries,
- Scarring,
- Eye injuries,
- Broken and fractured bones,
- Muscle bruising damage,
- Nerve damage, and
- Death of a participant.1
Risk of injury is an integral part of equine activities.
2. Who can I sue?
Depending on the facts of the case, a person injured by a horse in California can file a personal injury lawsuit against the following parties:
- Horse owner: Owners of these animals are required to exercise reasonable care in preventing harm caused by their horse.
- Owner of the property: If a person is riding while on another person’s property and is injured because of that property, the property owner may be liable to whoever is injured.
- Trainer: Trainers should pair the right horse with the right rider based on the ability of the participant.
- Riding club or stable: These properties commonly include clubhouses, pony ride strings, and other equine facilities. These facilities may be responsible for maintaining safe subsurface conditions and eliminating unfamiliar objects that could cause horses to make sudden movements and lead to collisions.
- Equine activity sponsors (“equine sponsors”) of horse-related activities, including horse shows / equine shows / jumper shows, riding programs, equine training, pony clubs, grand prix jumping, hunt clubs, endurance trail riding, steeplechasing, 4-h clubs, dressage, and parades.
3. Are horses “inherently dangerous”?
California courts have held that horses are “inherently dangerous” animals.2 Inherent risks of equine activities include such things as:
- Being thrown by the horse,
- Being bitten,
- Being kicked or stomped, or
- Falling from the saddle. 3
These risks mean that California courts will presume that horseback riders generally assume the risk associated with this activity in most circumstances.
Types of “Assumption of the Risk”
“Express assumption of the risk” occurs when someone requires the rider to sign a form which releases that person from liability. Also called a liability waiver, signing this document signs away certain rights.4
“Primary assumption of the risk” occurs when a rider is injured while choosing to ride a horse despite knowing the general risks involved in the activity. A defendant, (the person who gets sued), does not have a duty to protect a rider from risks that are naturally a part of horseback riding. This assumption is built into the fabric of California law, but there are exceptions:
- Gross Negligence: Gross negligence is an extreme departure from what an ordinary and reasonable person would do in the same situation. It is more than ordinary negligence, and the at-fault party did not make sufficient prudent effort to safeguard the victim.
- Reckless Actions: A person acts recklessly when that person knows that it is highly likely that their conduct will cause harm, and the person knowingly ignores that risk in wanton disregard.
- Intentional Actions: If a person means to cause injury when they commit some act which causes injury to another person, they are not protected by the assumption of the risk doctrine.
4. What about liability waivers?
Liability waivers are a form of express assumption of the risk. They are written agreements – like a written contract – under which the person who wishes to ride a horse agrees that it will not hold certain people responsible for any injuries that may result from horseback riding.
Does California have an equine liability statute?
No. California is not one of the 46 states with an EALA (short for equine activity liability act) that covers horse activities and injuries which come as a possible result of them.5
As a result, the assumption of the risk doctrine is applied to California personal injury cases dealing with horse-related injuries. Because of this rule, owners of horses who allow others to ride them often require a signed liability waiver.
What does a liability waiver do?
Liability waivers provide a strong defense against a personal injury lawsuit. Typical release forms include language that holds a person not liable for injuries that occur as a result of horseback riding, including the negligence of owners, their employees, the property, or even the horse itself. In short, the venue is not responsible for the safety of the participant in many cases.
While a liability waiver cannot prevent the filing of a lawsuit, it can often lead to very limited damages or outright dismissal of a case. It can also serve as a deterrent against filing the lawsuit in the first place.
When is a liability waiver enforceable?
To be enforceable, liability waivers must:
- Thoroughly inform of the risks: General statements such as “riding horses is dangerous” are not enough; the waiver should be a warning notice and spell out more specific dangerous latent conditions within the document.
- Comply with all California laws: California law has certain requirements associated with valid and binding agreement or contracts which must be followed.
- Have signatures of the proper parties: The agreement should list the parties whose liability is being released, and those parties must sign the document. The waiver should also list the person giving away their rights, such as the rider. A person can only give away their own rights, so only the person who signed is likely covered by a waiver. The exception is for children, who cannot sign themselves but must have a parent or legal guardian sign the waiver for them.6
If the liability waiver is defective somehow, the court will not hold the parties to the agreement. However, the court will still likely consider a primary assumption of the risk argument when looking at any personal injury case.
Additional Reading
For more in-depth information, refer to the following scholarly articles:
- Equine Liability Statutes: Are the Courts Moving in the Wrong Direction – Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law.
- The Equine Activity Liability Acts: A Discussion of Those in Existence and Suggestions for a Model Act – Kentucky Law Journal.
- The Rise of Equine Activity Liability Acts – Animal Law.
- Did Equine Liability Acts Save the Horse Industry – Drake Journal of Agriculture Law.
- Horseplay Gone Wrong: A Proposed Model Equine Liability Act – Valparaiso University Law Review.
Legal References:
- NCBI. Non‐fatal horse related injuries treated in emergency departments in the United States, 2001–2003.
- See Guido v. Koopman (1991) 1 Cal. App.4th 837, 842.
- Culture of Safety. Horseback Riding Safety.
- See, for example, California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 408 on Primary Assumption of Risk. Some states with horse liability statutes include Wyoming, Maine, New Jersey, Ohio, and Michigan. See also: Galardi v. Sea Horse Riding Club, (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 817; Kangas v. Perry, (2000) 620 N.W.2d 429; Russell v. Downing (N.H. 1974) 330 A.2d 454; Amburgey v. Sauder, (1999) 605 N.W.2d 84; Gibson v. Donahue, (2002) 772 N.E.2d 646.
- Maryland, New York, and Nevada do not have EALAs either.
- See Bennett v. United States Cycling Federation (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1485.