 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MULLER v. ENGLISH5/22/1996
This is a case of first impression construing the Injuries From Equine Activities Act, OCGA §§ 4-12-1 et seq., which provides immunity from liability for certain equine and llama activities. Because the activity in question here falls within the purview of the Code section, we conclude the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Dyna English, a rider and fox hunter of over twenty years' experience, was injured during a hunt sponsored by appellant Shakerag Hounds, Inc. English, riding her own horse, was in a small group known as the "hilltoppers" led by appellant Henry Muller. According to Muller's wife and the other riders in that small group, English was kicked by Muller's horse when she "lost control" and allowed her horse to run up "really fast" and cut between Muller and his wife, who was riding immediately behind him. According to English, she was riding along at a steady pace when Muller's horse suddenly and without warning kicked her in the leg.
English brought this action against Muller and Shakerag, seeking actual and punitive damages. Defendants answered, asserting OCGA § 4-12-3 inter alia as an affirmative defense, and moved for summary judgment on the basis of that Code section and assumption of the risk. The trial court denied summary judgment and certified the judgment for immediate review. We granted the application of Muller and Shakerag for interlocutory appeal.
1. The Injuries From Equine Activities Act, OCGA §§ 4-12-1 et seq., was enacted in 1991. The General Assembly made express legislative findings that "persons who participate in equine activities . . . may incur injuries as a result of the risks involved in such activities," that "the state and its citizens derive numerous economic and personal benefits from such activities," and that " t is, therefore, the intent of the General Assembly to encourage equine activities . . . by limiting the civil liability of those involved in such activities." OCGA § 4-12-1.
OCGA § 4-12-3 (a) provides that "an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional . . . or any other person . . . shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent
risks of equine activities," subject to certain exceptions provided in subsection (b). "Equine activity sponsor", "equine professional", "participant", and "inherent risks of equine activities" are defined in OCGA § 4-12-2. Specifically, "` nherent risks of equine activities'. . . means those dangers or conditions which are an integral part of equine activities . . . including, but not limited to: (A) The propensity of the animal to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm, or death to persons on or around them; (B) The unpredictability of the animal's reaction to such things as sounds, sudden movement, and unfamiliar objects, persons, or other animals; (C) Certain hazards such as surface and subsurface conditions; (D) Collisions with other animals or objects; and (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." OCGA § 4-12-2 (7). English does not dispute that this incident falls within the general scope of the Act. English contends, however, either that Muller and Shakerag have failed to comply with certain conditions precedent to the Act, or that they fall under one of the enumerated exceptions to immunity.
To invoke the privileges of immunity provided by the Code section, an equine activity sponsor or equine professional must post warning signs containing the text specified in OCGA § 4-12-4 (b), and cer
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Georgia Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|