Hold your horses...

[Gob]

A US court is to hear a case that could result in horses being classified as a "vicious" species.


A boy's parents sued a farm owner in the state of Connecticut after he was bitten by a horse named Scuppy in 2006.

A lower court said Scuppy belonged "to a species naturally inclined to do mischief and be vicious". The state supreme court will now hear an appeal.

If upheld, the lower court's ruling could make horse ownership uninsurable, say equine industry figures.

The legal action began in 2006 after a boy tried to pet Scuppy at Glendale Farms in Milford.

The animal reportedly bit the child on his right cheek, inflicting a serious injury.

The boy's father, Anthony Vendrella, sued the farm's owners, but lost in 2010 at a New Haven court.

That court ruled there was no evidence the farm's owner knew of any previous incidents of aggression involving Scuppy.

But a Connecticut Appellate Court later overturned this ruling, finding that testimony suggested Scuppy's species was "vicious" and that the boy's injury had been foreseeable.

If upheld by the state's supreme court, the ruling would be the first in the nation to classify horses as a vicious species, say analysts.

Horse farmers say that could make it difficult to pair horses with children, and damage a $221m (£138m) a year industry.

[Sue U]

There is so much wrong with this article in its presentation of legal issues and its suggestion of consequences, that I don't even know where to start, other than to say it's a steaming pile of horseshit.

The straightforward and unsurprising issue here is whether Connecticut should appliy strict liability for injuries caused by animals or whether it should adhere to the "one free bite" theory of liability. Strict liability means that as a general rule, the owner is responsible for whatever injury the animal causes, regardless of whether s/he had any knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensities or was otherwise negligent. In contrast, the "one free bite" rule means that an animal owner escapes responsibility if s/he did or could not know that the animal might be dangerous, but after the "first bite" (i.e., any incident suggesting a dangerous propensity), any subsequent incident results in liability. The rules are mostly frequently encountered in the context of dog bites, and 32 U.S. states (and the District of Columbia) have dog-bite statutes that generally eliminate "one free bite" immunity.

If horses, as a rule, can be expected to bite (and I have never heard anyone even suggest otherwise), then even common-law (i.e., non-statutory) rules would generally impose strict liability on the horse owner for any injury caused by the animal. Horses would be "classified as a vicious species" only to the extent that (duh!) it is foreseeable that they are likely to bite. In legal terms, they are "vicious" in the same way that anyone under 18 is an "infant."

If the appellate court ruling is upheld by the state supreme court, horse-ownership becomes no more "uninsurable" than dog ownership, and as I understand it, insurance companies somehow still manage to write homeowner policies at a profit. There is no evidence whatsoever that this case will somehow "damage a $221m a year industry," which is pure scare-mongering on the part of business groups trying to get special treatment and avoid responsibility for the injuries they cause.

[Joe Guy]

The "one free bite" law might sound good to dog or horse owners.

But not so good if you're only the first person that had your face bitten off by one of them.

[Sue U]

The "one free bite" law might sound good to dog or horse owners.

Mostly, it sounds good to liability insurance companies.

But not so good if you're only the first person that had your face bitten off by one of them.

Which is exactly why it is not the law in the large majority of states.

[Big RR]

Sue--I seem to recall that there are some breeds of dogs (pit bulls come to mind) that have been ruled by courts (or by statute in some cases) in several states as "naturally vicious"--bites by such dogs are not covered (usually specifically excluded) by general liability or homeowner's insurance--they have to be separately insured, and the coverage is fairly expensive--often written by carriers such as Lloyds of London who cover excess liability for fairly high premiums. I don't know the law in Connecticut, but I do wonder if having horses declared as requested would subject the owners of the horses to the same burden.

[Sue U]

From the Insurance Information Institute, and industry trade association that promotes insurers' views:

Homeowners and renters insurance policies typically cover dog bite liability. Most policies provide $100,000 to $300,000 in liability coverage. If the claim exceeds the limit, the dog owner is responsible for all damages above that amount, including legal expenses. Most insurance companies insure homeowners with dogs. However, once a dog has bitten someone, it poses an increased risk. In that instance, the insurance company may suggest that the homeowner find the dog a new home, or may charge a higher premium, nonrenew the homeowner’s insurance policy, or exclude the dog from coverage.

Many insurers are taking steps to limit their exposure to such losses. Some companies require dog owners to sign liability waivers for dog bites, while others charge more for owners of biting breeds such as pit bulls and Rottweilers and others are not offering insurance to dog owners at all. Some will cover a pet if the owner takes the dog to classes aimed at modifying its behavior or if the dog is restrained with a muzzle, chain or cage. It is unlikely that insurers will begin offering specialty insurance policies just for dog bites since the cost of such policies would be prohibitive.

http://www.iii.org/issues_updates/dog-b ... ility.html

I haven't handled a dog bite case in many years, but I have never seen a dog-bite exclusion in a homeowners policy and have never heard any of my fellow trial lawyers even mention such a clause. I suppose if you live in a jurisdiction that has made ownership of certain breeds illegal, you might fall under a general exclusion for illegal activities if you owned a banned breed. But breed-specific laws are problematic for a variety of reasons and it seems to me they are ineffective at best and actually counterproductive in terms of social policy.

[MajGenl.Meade]

In Ohio, Nationwide boiler-plate excluded liability coverage of (AFAIR) pure-bred or mixed breed: pit bulls, bull terrier breeds, rottweilers, chows. Maybe there were one or two others. The insured of course was required to sign the application verifying among other things that they did not own such animals. My beloved Appo (a mixed breed) had some blue splotches on her tongue; the vet said "Oh a chow" to which I replied "No she's NOT a chow. My homeowner policy says she isn't" at which he looked thoughtfully at me and said at last "A shar-pei then".

One of the inspection requirements incumbent upon the agent was to inspect the exterior of all homes prior to writing a policy and one of the items of interest was any sign of a dog. Signs saying "Beward of Dog" were an absolute rejection - the owner admits in writing for all to see that the dog is known to be dangerous/risk. We also excluded trampolines, unfenced swimming pools and so on - that is, a policy would not be written if such animals, toys and watery graves were seen to exist.

Walking around one or two properties in the more down-town areas of Cleveland and Akron I was more than once surprised by a dog on the exclusion list but fortunately was usually able to spot the chain fastened to the house - the other end being attached to a vicious home protector lurking and waiting for lunch

[Big RR]

Sue--the only case I was involved in was that of a friend who had a Siberian husky. The dog got out and when to a neighbors yard and killed a few chickens (this is a semi-rural area) and when the owner came to chase it away it "behaved aggressively" toward him and charged him (never biting him). He was cited for failure to control his dog, and the (municipal) court ruled that the dog was vicious and would either have to be euthanized or subject to several major restrictions: it could not roam freely outside (must always be leashed--even on his property); if it were to be kept outside for any extended period of time, he would have to construct a pen with 10 or 12 foot fencing (I don't recall which); it would have to wear a muzzle anytime it was outside; and if it ever got out off the property again, muzzled or not, it would have to be euthanized.

He was also sued by the neighbor, and the insurance company quickly settled (the dog was in the municipal pet lockup for around 6 weeks by the time the case got into court); it then informed him that the dog would no longer be covered by his homeowners policy based on the municipal court's ruling. I looked into appealing the ruling, but we ultimately decided to have the dog euthanized; based on my research we might have had a chance in getting some restrictions removed, but given the position of the insurance company, it was pretty much unworkable.

tying this together with what Meade said was the policy in Ohio for certain not insuring certain breeds often thought of as being vicious, I can understand the concern of horse owners in Connecticut.

[Lord Jim]

We also excluded trampolines

Even if it was in the bedroom?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Signs saying "Beward of Dog"

I have that on my fence as Apollo (my black lab) might lick you to death. 100lbs of pure mush. And he listens and does not jump up on people.

[Sue U]

My beloved Appo (a mixed breed) had some blue splotches on her tongue; the vet said "Oh a chow" to which I replied "No she's NOT a chow. My homeowner policy says she isn't" at which he looked thoughtfully at me and said at last "A shar-pei then".

Signs saying "Beward of Dog" were an absolute rejection - the owner admits in writing for all to see that the dog is known to be dangerous/risk.

A rejection for dangerous spelling would be in order, at any rate. But I have known more than a few people whose homes feature a "Beware of Dog" sign but who own no dog; also people whose homes sport emblems declaring they are "protected by" some alarm or security company, yet are not. You can't believe everything you read.

We also excluded trampolines, unfenced swimming pools and so on - that is, a policy would not be written if such animals, toys and watery graves were seen to exist.

Yet someone is writing those policies, as homes still have pets, pools, trampolines and insurance. (My older daughter last month fractured her ankle on a friend's trampoline while we were over for a dinner party. We didn't make a claim, though.)

Walking around one or two properties in the more down-town areas of Cleveland and Akron I was more than once surprised by a dog on the exclusion list but fortunately was usually able to spot the chain fastened to the house - the other end being attached to a vicious home protector lurking and waiting for lunch

Our vicious home protector is ever alert to the mortal threat posed by rabbits on the lawn, and is always ready to spring into murderous action upon sighting such intruders. If you were to ring our doorbell, however, she would likely first lick the nail polish off your toes before peeing out of sheer joy for having just met you.

[oldr_n_wsr]

is ever alert to the mortal threat posed by rabbits

Apollo likes to chase the cars that drive past. Of course he's on this side of the fence and the cars are on the other. But he has worn a nice path in the lawn on his side of the fence. And if he ever figured it out, he could clear the fence in a single bound. It's 4 feet high, same as my pool which he has jumped into from a standstill.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Our vicious home protector is ever alert to the mortal threat posed by rabbits on the lawn, and is always ready to spring into murderous action upon sighting such intruders. If you were to ring our doorbell, however, she would likely first lick the nail polish off your toes before peeing out of sheer joy for having just met you.

Better not lick off my toe nail polish - that's a lawsuit right there. And I just might pee too!

Re spelling error - damn! damn! damn! Maybe those people had a dog up for adoption?

Oh sure, we had many homeowners insured and they had OUTDOOR trampolines - some of them were hidden when they knew we were on our way to inspect; others bought them after they bought the policy. Some (shock!) even hid them after we saw them and said "Oh no we got rid of it all right".

We cancelled more than one policy for failure to properly fence a pool and lost a couple because of the trampoline thing. I remember one policy that the underwriter rejected because I sent him a photo of some huge Brazilian monster dog and asked permission to write; he relented when I proved that it wasn't one of the forbidden breeds.

Oh yes, and Big RR - "Husky" was one of them.

[Guinevere]

[quote="Sue U]
Our vicious home protector is ever alert to the mortal threat posed by rabbits on the lawn, and is always ready to spring into murderous action upon sighting such intruders. If you were to ring our doorbell, however, she would likely first lick the nail polish off your toes before peeing out of sheer joy for having just met you.[/quote]

Should that happen you would owe me a pedi. You probably do already anyway

[liberty]

I want a Savanna when the breed reaches a hundred pounds.

[TPFKA@W]

Biting is usually confined to stud horses and can be a common occurance and should be expected. Essentially when dealing with an unneutered male you should figure that one end bites and one end kicks. It is fairly uncommon among geldings and mares. I have been bitten by a horse and can attest personally to the severity. Stitches even. Horses vary in personality and some are just plain ornery and some would as soon stomp you as look at you.

[Lord Jim]

when dealing with an unneutered male you should figure that one end bites and one end kicks. It is fairly uncommon among geldings and mares.

Well, I have to take issue with that...

I've known a few mares over the years that exhibited that behavior pattern...

Oh wait...you were talking about horses...

[TPFKA@W]

Then there are human males who have been gelded psychologically....