# Opinions wanted concerning owner liability of horses getting loose.



## Walkamile (Dec 29, 2008)

One of my town selectmen called me tonight asking for my opinion on this. He would like me to send him an email listing said opinion, for him to bring up at their (select board) next meeting.

So, what is your opinion regarding owner liability/responsibility of horses getting loose, and town having to send emergency people to get said horses back to the owner. This is at the towns expense, which is passed on to the taxpayers. Understand, this particular case has happened repeatedly, and on a dangerous road.

I know what I've suggested , but would like to hear/read others take on this.

Thanks.


----------



## mbender (Jul 22, 2009)

Why is it the towns expense? I think if an owner has faulty fencing or a control problem they should be responsible for their animal. I have been asked by my issurance company if I want to insure my horses incase of them getting out and getting hit by a car and/or injuring someone. I think the same rules should apply with horses as it does with owners dogs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Walkamile (Dec 29, 2008)

Very valid point mbender. The town got involved because the horses owner called saying she needed help to get them. Because of the risk, of course the town sent emergency team there.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Hm, that can be a bit of a complicated issue. I mean, after all, as horse owners, we know that sometimes they get out regardless. Depending on the circumstances, the response will change every time. If the people who continually have stock out on the road have sub-par fencing, then maybe a warning next time their stock gets out to get better fencing and if they fail to try to fix it, possibly a ticket every time they get out after that. However, then someone will have to determine what is adequate fencing and then they would need to enforce the rules equally on everyone. That, in itself, would probably cost as much, or more, than what they are doing now.

I don't know how it works in your area but around here, local law enforcement gets a set salary and has set hours when they are on duty and on call and there are no less than 3 on call at a time (very small, rural area :lol. They take care of whatever calls they receive during that time whether it's a fatality car accident or 100 head of cows out on the road. There has been quite a few times when I got a call from a deputy asking for help to put up loose stock.


----------



## ShutUpJoe (Nov 10, 2009)

I asked my insurance agent if they could provide me with insurance for that cause and they said there was no such thing..... : /


----------



## Walkamile (Dec 29, 2008)

Joe, do they mean if you are fined, or if someone hits your horse?


----------



## ShutUpJoe (Nov 10, 2009)

I asked them if they had insurance that covered my horses getting out and someone getting injured because of it..


----------



## Walkamile (Dec 29, 2008)

Joe that's interesting. I'll have to make a few calls and check into that. Pretty sure, not positive, that a home owners policy with livestock added will cover. Premiums are high, but that's the insurance biz concerning livestock.

Smrobs, yes, the fining is attractive, but like you put it will open a can of worms too. Who decides what is adequate fencing. Is a hot wire enough, or will it be 3 boards with a hot wire on top? Can get very complicated and effect people who have had no issues keeping their horses in.

This last escape involved not only the animal control officer, but as I said, the emergency personnel. While some positions are salaried, there is still the cost of emergency vehicles going out.


----------



## PaintHorseMares (Apr 19, 2008)

I'm not sure if you are asking for opinions or if you are looking for examples of actual statues. My personal opinion is that you should only be held responsible if you were negligent, but after surfing a bit I found that the definition of negligence can vary. Look at this web page for some possible ideas.... Animal and Equine Law Practice: Loose Horses. Confusing and Complicated.


----------



## Walkamile (Dec 29, 2008)

Thanks PaintedHorseMares, that was very interesting, and poses more questions. LOL! One of the questions is if the ACO is called into the recapture, or any other town employee, now that they are acting for town and let's say their actions inadvertently cause the horse to flee into an oncoming vehicle, is the town liable?

I spoke with a neighboring towns councilman, and he doesn't have any idea.
However, he did suggest talking with the town solicitor about this particular scenario. That may lead into whether fines should be added or not. 

The more you delve into this, the more questions arise. 

And I guess to answer your first question, I'm looking for anything. Actual statues or any opinions about this. I realize the statues will vary according to where you are, but info in info. Gives food for the process.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

In the UK the horse owner is Liable (in law) for thier horses actions at all times, even if some moron has cut your fencing down, you are still responsible if the horse gets out. we found this out when a car plowed into our fencing at 2 am in the morning, the police came, fire service removed the car from the fencebut it left a massive great big hole. Thankfully the police noticed horses in the field and knocked on our door, but I can tell you that doing fencing at 3am in the morning when it is -5C outside is not pleasent!

Thats what 3rd party liability insurance is for. You basicly absolutly MUST Have some form of cover for your horse/horses because not having it leaves you liable for unlimited laims against you.


----------



## Saskia (Aug 26, 2009)

It doesn't sound nice, but I think a good way to regulate would be to impound the horse if caught. The local ranger can take it to headquarters/some kind of yard. It must be claimed by the owner for a fee, and all fees such as transport, feeding etc. be reimbursed. If not the horse is sold at public auction in 30 days. 

Perhaps they can have a "one-off" thing, where the first time it is free. Or if the horse is registered with the council (microchipped?) the ranger or whatever calls the owner. 

If someone neglects to provide adequate fencing then they should maybe be liable or something? But there needs to be flexibility - if a tree comes down and knocks a fence at night and the horse escapes its not really fair.


----------



## Walkamile (Dec 29, 2008)

Faye my understanding , though I've never had this happen first hand, is that the owner is always liable. However, if a town employee acting for the town is involved and the horse runs into a vehicle and does bodily damage to the inhabitants of the vehicle, is the town liable, even along with the owner?

Saskia, the whole "adequate" fencing brings up another whole issue. Who determines what is adequate fencing. I've seen horses go through wooden fencing, something I certainly would have considered adequate. And yes, there is also the whole circumstances scenario. Very good point. What if a moose (very real happening around here, as one comes through my back fence once a year!) breaks the fencing and horses get out. Certainly another side to the issue.

Right now I'm waiting to here back from the selectman. I'm hoping he will pursue the avenues that I laid out and find out what is and isn't in this issue. Interesting any way you slice it! :lol:


----------



## NorthernMama (Mar 12, 2008)

Here's a partial thought. In regards to fines for inadequate fencing and how to determine if it's inadequate. If the horses get out, it's inadequate. My horses need one little thin electric wire and if it's messed up they won't leave anyway. My neighbour has four boards about 4 ft high, another has one strand of electric with flagging, another... and on and on. 

We had an episode here with my neighbour's dogs. We have no bylaw to deal with this properly so I had to call the provincial police. The officer said that, in his experience, if the owners know that they will be fined every time the township is called, they will take more care and control over their animals. Especially if the fine escalates with each call. So, if my neighbour's dogs keep me up at night again, they might, for example, get a $100 fine. Another call, it might be $150, then $300. Maybe at some point they will decide they can't afford to keep the dogs because they can't afford the fines. (and can't train the idiotic dogs -- they are soooo annoying! -- the dogs AND the people).

Now, in the case of a lady calling the township for help because she can't catch her own horses-- well, she'd better fix her fencing, or train her horses, or get some friends, or figure out how to catch them by herself. 

If she has to call the township it should be the same as if the neighbour a mile down the road called. She should be fined. If the fines continue and escalate something has to break somewhere. Then she either has to get rid of the horses or make the improvements. If the township can't collect the fines, then they get tacked on to the property tax bill at the end of the year. Three years of unpaid taxes in this province equals TAX SALE!

I do think the township/county/state has an obligation to catch the horses if they are aware of them being free because of the danger and hence the liability. Hopefully some or all of the cost could be recouped in fines overall. The biggest part of the fine revenue from the biggest offenders of course.


----------



## Walkamile (Dec 29, 2008)

NorthernMama said:


> Here's a partial thought. In regards to fines for inadequate fencing and how to determine if it's inadequate. If the horses get out, it's inadequate. My horses need one little thin electric wire and if it's messed up they won't leave anyway. My neighbour has four boards about 4 ft high, another has one strand of electric with flagging, another... and on and on.
> 
> We had an episode here with my neighbour's dogs. We have no bylaw to deal with this properly so I had to call the provincial police. The officer said that, in his experience, if the owners know that they will be fined every time the township is called, they will take more care and control over their animals. Especially if the fine escalates with each call. So, if my neighbour's dogs keep me up at night again, they might, for example, get a $100 fine. Another call, it might be $150, then $300. Maybe at some point they will decide they can't afford to keep the dogs because they can't afford the fines. (and can't train the idiotic dogs -- they are soooo annoying! -- the dogs AND the people).
> 
> ...


I think that's what bothers this selectman most. She can't catch her own horses! :shock:

I like the escalating fine theory. I think that's along the lines this selectman would like to go too.


----------



## PaintHorseMares (Apr 19, 2008)

Your OP about the cost to your local government made me very curious, so I talked to a couple friends that work for the county and in our area. If the horses were _continually _getting out, it would be considered a public nuisance. Here is the applicable ordinance from our county...


Sec. 4-45. - Public nuisance.
It shall be unlawful for an owner or keeper to permit an animal to create a public nuisance, or to maintain a public nuisance created by an animal. Compliance shall be required as follows:​(1)
When an animal control officer or law enforcement officer observes a violation, the owner or keeper will be provided written notification of such violation and be given 24 hours or less to abate the nuisance. 
(2)
Upon receipt of a written detailed and signed complaint alleging that any person is maintaining a public nuisance, the animal control director shall cause the owner or keeper of the animal in question to be 
notified that a complaint has been received, and shall cause the situation complained upon to be investigated and a written report to be prepared.​(3)
If the written findings indicate that the complaint is justified, the animal control director shall cause the owner or keeper of the animal in question to be notified in writing, and shall order abatement of such nuisance within 24 hours or such lesser amount of time, which shall be designated on the abatement order. 
(4)
If, after 24 hours or such lesser time as is designated in the abatement order, the nuisance is not abated, the animal creating the nuisance may be impounded or a civil penalty may be issued and/or a criminal summons may be issued. 

(Ord. of 6-16-1987, § XV, eff. 1-1-1988; Ord. of 11-1-1995, eff. 1-1-1997)​ 

Sec. 4-48. - Penalties.
The following penalties shall pertain to violations of this article:​(1)
The violation of any provision of this article shall be a misdemeanor, and any person convicted of such violation shall be punishable as provided in G.S. 14-4, or other applicable law. Each day's violation of this article is a separate offense. Payment of a fine imposed in criminal proceedings pursuant to this subsection does not relieve a person of his liability for taxes, fees or civil penalties imposed under this article. 
(2)
Enforcement of this article may include any appropriate equitable remedy, injunction or order of abatement issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to G.S. 153A-123(d), (e). 
(3)
In addition to and independent of any criminal penalties and other sanctions provided in this article, a violation of this article may also subject the offender to the following civil penalties: 
a.
The animal control director may issue to the known owner or keeper of any animal, or to any other violator of the provisions of this article, a ticket or citation giving notice of the alleged violation(s) and of the civil penalty imposed. Tickets or citations so issued may be delivered in person or mailed by first class mail to the person charged if that person cannot readily be found. The following civil penalties shall be assessed for each violation of this article: 
Mistreatment of animals (section 4-45) $200.00​ 
The civil penalty for a nuisance violation (section 4-45) shall be as follows: Number of Prior
  Nuisance
  ViolationsAmount  1$ 50.00  2 100.00  3 200.00  4 300.00  5 400.00


This civil penalty shall be paid to the animal control director or his or her designee within 14 days of receipt. This civil penalty is in addition to any other fees or costs or fines imposed that are authorized by this article.​b.
If the applicable civil penalty is not paid within the time period prescribed, a civil action may be commenced to recover the penalty and costs associated with collection of the penalty, and/or a criminal summons may be issued against the owner or keeper or other alleged violator of this article; and upon conviction, the owner shall be punished as provided by state law. Failure on the part of the owner or keeper of an animal or other alleged violator to pay the applicable civil penalty within the time period prescribed is unlawful and a violation of this article. The civil penalty for violation of this subsection is $25.00 except where the original violation was for failure to vaccinate for rabies, in which case the civil penalty for violation of this subsection is $100.00. 

(Ord. of 6-16-1987, § XXI, eff. 1-1-1988; Ord. of 3-1-1988, eff. 3-1-1988; Ord. of 11-1-1995, eff. 1-1-1997; Ord. of 12-3-2007)​


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

Walkamile said:


> Faye my understanding , though I've never had this happen first hand, is that the owner is always liable. However, if a town employee acting for the town is involved and the horse runs into a vehicle and does bodily damage to the inhabitants of the vehicle, is the town liable, even along with the owner?


Nope In the UK even if the police are handling your horse the owner is still liable for any damage.
The police/fire service don't charge over here but you can get a fine if they are loose.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

Interesting issue for sure. I ALWAYS carry liability on my horses which covers them getting out and someone getting hurt, amongst other things, and mine are boarded, not even at my house. It also covers me if someone at the barn handles them and gets hurt. Not sure why your insurance agent said you couldn't get it. Just google equine liability and it is there. Mine is about $500/yr for both of them, more than average, but I have one in a therapeutic riding program and wanted extra coverage.

I would agree that a fence is inadequate if a horse keeps getting out, and that the public nuisance law should be in play with escalating fines.


----------



## NorthernMama (Mar 12, 2008)

I can't get liability specifically on my horses unless I pay working farm insurance, which I can't get unless I have farm revenues. Which I don't. I'm _pretty sure_ I was told that somehow or other though, this would be covered under my home insurance, same as if my dog bit someone. Now I think I'm going to call my broker just to make sure. 

I also can't get medical/life insurance on my horses because they aren't *worth* anything in dollars since they were rescues. Even though both are registered.


----------



## PaintHorseMares (Apr 19, 2008)

NorthernMama said:


> I'm _pretty sure_ I was told that somehow or other though, this would be covered under my home insurance, same as if my dog bit someone.


Liability for our horses is covered under our homeowners policy, and they actually consider horses less of a risk than dogs.


----------

