# US case to decide are horses vicious?



## TheAQHAGirl (Aug 10, 2012)

Link to article: BBC News - Connecticut court to decide whether horses are 'vicious'

Thoughts? Comments?

Personal thoughts: Really?...I get really annoyed when I read these things. _"A species naturally inclined to do mischief and be vicious" _Oh my gosh this has to be a joke. In a way this kinda reminds me of a lot of falsely accused dog breeds being accused of being dangerous.


----------



## oh vair oh (Mar 27, 2012)

At a large horse show some lookie-loos were wandering the barns and their 5 year old son ran right up to my yearling's back legs. I had to pull the child away and give it a lecture on why that was dangerous while their mom just stood there, stupified. 

If you wouldn't let your kid run up to other livestock animals, such as bison or bulls or camels, don't let them think horses are puppy dogs. And even puppy dogs can be dangerous when approached without permission.


----------



## Incitatus32 (Jan 5, 2013)

Oh geeze.... ANY animal can be 'mischievous and vicious'. This is a bunch of sue happy people trying to pin something that just happens onto a specific person/animal/species. My parents used to say that if you got hurt while being around animals (deliberate attacks excluded) then you buck up, realize stuff happens and take care of it. It's an animal and it probably didn't mean to hurt you, just was doing what animals do. It's a lot like the parents that dangle their children over the 'beware of dog' sign filled fence and sue when the dog bites the kid. IMO it's often times also the humans fault for not realizing if they were out of their element or misreading body language. C'mon people.... give us horse people a break, just because you're too busy pretending to know everything does not mean that all horses are dangerous.


----------



## GreySorrel (Mar 5, 2012)

TheAQHAGirl said:


> Link to article: BBC News - Connecticut court to decide whether horses are 'vicious'
> 
> Thoughts? Comments?
> 
> Personal thoughts: Really?...I get really annoyed when I read these things. _"A species naturally inclined to do mischief and be vicious" _Oh my gosh this has to be a joke. In a way this kinda reminds me of a lot of falsely accused dog breeds being accused of being dangerous.



Ya know, it isn't a horse that I think of when I read that comment you put in italics AQHA Girl...my first thought were children. So, can we go to court and decide if those little devious snots that my neighbor squeezed out fit the bill???? Sheesh...leave my horses alone!


----------



## HorseLovinLady (Jul 18, 2011)

How absurd!!


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

What a waste of everyone's time. I once bit someone in school when I was little. Does that make me and my 'species' "vicious" ?


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

It's not a joke....which is what makes it both sad and hilarious beyond belief :rofl:
It does make you wonder what they're using for brains in Connecticut's legal system.
Based on their ruling....let's see...dogs, cats, cows, goats, pigs, sheep, mice, rabbits (yes they bite too), chickens, ducks, geese, ....... pretty much everything except most types of fish used as "pets" qualify as "a species naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious" in the state of Connecticut. :rofl::rofl:

I think some Connecticut judges and lawyers need a lot of very serous psychological help :rofl::rofl:

My dog knocks my grandchildren down all the time as she swings around to face each of them when they surround her while all trying to pet here. I guess that makes her "extra" dangerous :lol:

What makes it even more ridiculous (if that's possible :lol is that Connecticut already as a law (as do all but a very few states) addressing this. 
For Connecticut it reads:
"Assumption of risk by person engaged in recreational equestrian activities when, each person engaged in recreational equestrian activities shall assume the risk and legal responsibility of any injury to his person or property arising out of the hazards inherent in equestrian sports, unless the injury was proximately caused by negligence of the person providing the horse or horses to the individual engaged in recreational equestrian activities or the failure to warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity by the person providing the horses or his agents or employees."

OK, Connecticut Appellate Court Judge: Here's your sign :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## aubie (Aug 24, 2013)

People get worse everyday. If it had been me, my dad would have said 'bet you won't stick your face there anymore' this suit takes up valuable court time/ cost. There are people that have really been hurt/victims that need it. Would not be surprised to learn that the insurance companies are behind this push to label vicious. May up the premiums, and lessen their exposure.


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

Oh what wuz dat pookie? Dwangerous horsey worsey bite you?
Don't wowry mommy wommy gonna sue it and make it alllll better!

Give me a break! It's a freakin prey animal!

ETA: I agree, ban the vicious children. Better yet, ban the stupid people that breed them!
(And I'm a parent!)


----------



## DuffyDuck (Sep 27, 2011)

I think they have a point... Ponies, especially shetties, are pretty devious little snots! I always have problems with ponies..especially the little ones!


----------



## xlntperuvian (Jul 1, 2012)

oh vair oh said:


> If you wouldn't let your kid run up to other livestock animals, such as bison or bulls or camels, don't let them think horses are puppy dogs. And even puppy dogs can be dangerous when approached without permission.


Unfortunately there are grown people who do run up to bison, moose, elk, deer and even bears. Yellowstone Park is full of them every summer. They want to get a picture and end up being trampled, gored or mauled. 

So while we are very aware that there are dangers connected with being around horses, some people think that because an animal is "domesticated" or "semi-domesticated" they are safe to approach. And then they learn the hard way. 

Sometimes it's easier and a lot less costly to just assume that people are stupid. :lol:


----------



## stevenson (Sep 12, 2011)

it will never end. The level of stupidity that gets passed as law is just mind boggling.
The attorneys handling the case for these parents needs dis barred for life. 
This is a waste of time and money.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

stevenson said:


> it will never end. The level of stupidity that gets passed as law is just mind boggling.
> The attorneys handling the case for these parents needs dis barred for life.
> This is a waste of time and money.


So many Judges are vicious, not to mention some Lawyers and Law Makers, something needs to be done about these idiots.....

Common sense and brains have long gone out the window....

.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

Ok, my friends from WV have informed me that they are VERY happy. Now there's have a state they can pick on (and they don't even have horses). Better yet, as one pointed out to me, the new butt of the jokes in Connecticut are "supposedly" educated :lol: (although they might have a tough time proving it to me :rofl.

Now the question is will the CT Supreme Court step in and overturn the Appellate Court Judge's ruling (why not, the Appellate Court Judge overturned the lower court's ruling.....have to love lawyer who will push anything to it's illogical conclusion :lol. 
If they're not going to overturn it I think they should just make things easier in the future by making a new ruling:
In the great state of Connecticut all species of vertebrates, whether domestic or not and including humans are hereafter classified as naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious.

Of course you know what the real problem is....it's those horses from Connecticut. Just make sure you don't get any of those Connecticut horses and you'll be ok :rofl:. They should be required to open up a new registry for those Connecticut horses. Part of the breed standard has to be: must be naturally inclined to behave mischievously or viciously.


----------



## QtrBel (May 31, 2012)

I don't know my goldfish (pond raised) will try to take your fingers off if you are feeding. Good thing they don't have teeth.


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

Skyseternalangel said:


> What a waste of everyone's time. I once bit someone in school when I was little. Does that make me and my 'species' "vicious" ?


OMG--I used to bite kids when I was little and they tried to pull me off of my rocky horse!!
I guess we've BOTH vicious!!! ROFL


----------



## Roux (Aug 23, 2013)

Hey everyone I was interested in this so I did some research (law student problems). Sometimes these reports leave things out of a story. So if this is too long and boring please skip. This is not my opinion but rather a summary of the case. A quick summary is that the court does not use the common definition of vicious that normal people would in every day context. 

I looked up both the cases from the Connecticut Superior Court and the Appellate court to get a better understanding of the issues. 

Fist some background: Glendale Farms operated by Astriab (Defendant) was a business that sold flowers, vegetables, herbs and other products while also offering horse boarding services. Plaintiff (the child, 2 years at time of incident, and his parents representing him) were at the farm to purchase some vegetables. After making their purchase the plaintiffs approached the horses that were in a paddock adjacent to the parking lot. This was reportedly normal and the farm owners did nothing to separate the horses from vegetable purchasers. The father then began to pet a horse while the boy watched. The father turned his attention to another horse and that is when the horse “Scuppy” bit the child on the cheek. The injury was serious enough to require surgery and the boy has a permanent scar on his right cheek. 

In 2008 charges were filed against Astriab.In 2009 Astriab filed a motion for summary judgment saying that they had no prior knowledge of the propensity of the horse to bite or have a vicious disposition. They further stated that they have never had a horse injure a person in 28 years of business and they don’t know which horse bit the child. 

In their opposition the plaintiffs stated that horses by their very nature are, “is capable of biting someone without provocation or predisposition and that this was known to the defendants.” A Vet also testified in support of this statement by adding that when feeding a horse you do so “palm up” to avoid having your fingers bit. 

Astriab then testified that he conceded that horses are more than capable of biting a person and by their very nature could bite a person who attempts to pet or feed them and cause great physical damage. Scuppy was described as a typical horse but Astriab conceded that the horse could bite someone. 

Given that information the lower court decided that the Plaintiffs (the boy and his family) did not meet the burden of proof required to show that Scuppy specifically was dangerous and that demonstrating that horses in general was not enough. The Plaintiff’s appealed the decision. 

Fast forward to the decision made in Feb. 2012: 

The court had to rely on a previous cases with similar facts about a cat, which stated that if the animal belongs to a group of animals that are not ordinarily considered vicious then the owner of the animal is not liable for injury caused by the animal. Further the owner is only liable if they had reason to believe the animal was likely to act vicious. 

This means the court has a two part test to determine if the farm had notice that: (1) The animal (in this case a horse) belongs to a species naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious; (2) That Scuppy was in fact vicious.

The court went through a discussion of similar cases but eventually used the rule that “The owner of a domestic animal is chargeable with knowledge of the general propensities of certain animals and he or she must exercise due care to prevent injury from reasonably anticipated conduct.”

Viciousness is defined as, “a propensity or tendency of an animal to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation; and any propensity on the part of a domestic animal, which is likely to cause injury to human beings under the circumstances in which the party controlling the animal places him, is a dangerous or vicious propensity.” Meaning that when an animal hurts someone even by play not malice its actions are considered vicious and therefor an owner is liable for damage caused by mischievous play and by ferociousness. Vicious is equal to dangerous in this context. 

Because of his previous testimony where the BO said he knew any horse could bite someone the court found that he “had notice” that horses were part of a species naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious. In other words he knew that horse are dangerous. (Remember vicious = dangerous in this context.) Therefor he meets prong 1 of the test.


The court found in favor of the Plaintiff. It is now under consideration again it looks like. 


*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
My own opinion is that I hate frivolous law suits as much as the next person but put yourself in the shoes of the family. Their baby son was permanently disfigured what would you do? He wasn't just nipped, there was a serious injury to a BABY!

As far as the BO I feel bad for them too. After almost 30 years of no problems this falls in their laps. I feel sympathy for both parties. 



I understand that the argument could be made well it is there own fault that their son got bit, but if you didn't know horses and only saw them in TV and books you wouldn't really know any better would you? I don't want to say they are completely without fault but I can't say I blame them either. 

On the other hand what could the BO have done to prevent grocery shoppers from getting too close? When you have horses protecting others from them is actually protecting yourself from liability. 

This is a real lose lose and hopefully won't have horrible repercussions for the horse industry in that state.


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

So, I wonder if my sign that says ..."farm activities carry a certain degree of danger....etc., cover me? Or do I also need, Caution- Vicious Horses" signs, too?

One time years ago, my horses lived in a pasture surrounded by houses with 6' wood fences. One day, one of the neighbors came by to ask if my horses were vaccinated, I said yes..but why? Their little boy, fairly sever Down's Syndrome, was petting one over the fence, and stuck his fingers in the horse's mouth, scraping them on his teeth. They had taken him to the doctor, but wanted to check....So, I asked what had the Dr. told them? He said, "Keep the kid's fingers OUT OF THE HORSE'S MOUTH" I laughed till I cried!!!!

Nancy


----------



## TheAQHAGirl (Aug 10, 2012)

GreySorrel said:


> Ya know, it isn't a horse that I think of when I read that comment you put in italics AQHA Girl...my first thought were children. So, can we go to court and decide if those little devious snots that my neighbor squeezed out fit the bill???? Sheesh...leave my horses alone!


LOL. True that!


----------



## TheAQHAGirl (Aug 10, 2012)

This also got me thinking...What happened to letting children make their own mistake and live with the consequence? 

Seriously do you think running up to animal you don't know, or have little knowledge about, is a good idea? What are they going to do? Give you loads of hugs and kisses?


----------



## goneriding (Jun 6, 2011)

Unfortunate but the parent assumed all is well and peachy, his fault. Blaming someone else for your own stupidity, wow what a country we live in. :shock:


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

Roux said:


> Hey everyone I was interested in this so I did some research (law student problems). Sometimes these reports leave things out of a story. So if this is too long and boring please skip. This is not my opinion but rather a summary of the case. A quick summary is that the court does not use the common definition of vicious that normal people would in every day context.
> 
> I looked up both the cases from the Connecticut Superior Court and the Appellate court to get a better understanding of the issues.
> 
> ...


Still an incredible case of stupidity since CT already has a statute that basically says that dealing with horses carries an inheirent risk (all but about 3 or 4 states have statutes/laws that address this) and that a person who is dealing with a horse by default accepts this risk. There's often verbage to cover cases of an owner not disclosing known safety issues that are above and beyond the normal risk, but that was not the case here.

The Appellet Court Judge should have just thrown the case out and repremanded the attorney for wasting the courts time with a case that should never have seen a court room. Not with an existing state statute that was designed to cover the risk of dealing with horses. It's going to get to the point that statutes will have to be written with so much detail to cover every possible bit of minutiae that could, or even couldn't, ever happen. There use to be such a thing as the "intent" of a law or statute. Oh, wait, there still is.....just not in Connecticut :lol:


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

When I was a kid I dropped a vase in hobby lobby. I tried to grab it as it was falling and my hand made contact as it shattered. The biggest shard went THROUGH my hand, I still have the scars.

The managers fell all over themselves trying to help me. I've never seen so much blood since, I literally ruined everything I walked by. They offered to call an ambulance and cover all my hospital bills.

My mom said no. It was HER FAULT for not keeping an eye on me.

Is glass going to be inherently vicious next?????
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Roux (Aug 23, 2013)

I definitely understand the perspective that the parents and the child are at fault and I am in no way trying to blame the BO.

But put yourself in their shoes. I am sure we have all been in a situation where we didn't know what we were doing and weren't aware of the danger. To us horse people it is obvious that horses can be dangerous and easy to say "stupid people" should know better. There are so many people who are not fortunate enough to have experience with horses. If you know nothing about horses you would have no idea that they could bite. I feel sympathy for this family, I am not condoning the suit but I don't think there is any reason to criticize this family. Accident's happen and I don't think it is fair to blame this family. Imagine if your baby suffered an injury that required surgery it would be devastating and expensive. 

____

lbs not miles : I see what your saying but I don't think the lawyers brought up the statute therefore the court couldn't. I didn't see it mentioned in the discussion. But I don't know for sure.


----------



## Incitatus32 (Jan 5, 2013)

Roux said:


> My own opinion is that I hate frivolous law suits as much as the next person but put yourself in the shoes of the family. Their baby son was permanently disfigured what would you do? He wasn't just nipped, there was a serious injury to a BABY!


I agree with you and your very informative post :wink: but some part of me is still thinking it's a bit of a stupid move on the parents part. When I was younger around 3 or 4 maybe 5 not real sure of my age lol (through stupidity of people) I got between two dogs that were very friendly. Something ticked the other one of the dogs off and it retaliated by turning and snapping at the dog. My face was in the way. My cheek and upper lip were both severed almost completely off of my face and I went through two surgeries to put them back together. I scar very easily and because of that it makes the scars very noticeable and white. I wouldn't say I'm disfigured but since I'm still growing a little I hit periods where they stick out and stretch and I get stares. My parents however did not blame the dogs or owners, they blamed themselves because they put their child in a position to be hurt. IMO that's how it should be. An animal is an animal and can hurt any child, I sympathize with the parents but still; you put your child there. I'm not saying don't let babies near animals but at least be aware of all times where everybody is "Stay alert, stay alive" has always been my motto. 

On the other hand: I just got a facebook thing from my trainer about this and thought I'd share! 

"Vicious? Of course they're vicious! But so are my salt water fish! And the llamas next door. Mischievous? Of course. They know when the fence is down, get out and go eat my neighbors flowers! Apparently these are not horse people because any horse person would be amazed that you could call a 1000+ pound animal that can kill you without thinking about it 'sweet' and 'innocent' and turn your back on it. I figure on my death certificate it'll read 'death by horse'." (she then posted a couple of pictures of her horses literally ripping her fence down, but I didn't want to post them without her permission).


----------



## Roux (Aug 23, 2013)

Incitatus32 I would probably be like your parents I wouldn't blame the dog/ horse or their owner and personally I wouldn't sue either, it's not in my nature. I just don't want to pass judgment.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

greentree said:


> So, I wonder if my sign that says ..."farm activities carry a certain degree of danger....etc., cover me? Or do I also need, Caution- Vicious Horses" signs, too?


You would think that the law would cover you, but CT has a law and they've still spent years hashing out something that should have been a non issue.

Apparently the only states that do not equine liability laws or statutes are CA, MD, NV and NY. Of course not all of the laws are written the same, but most cover it pretty well. For exampe here's a portion taken from SC (please note the "not limited to"....important words):

(6) “Inherent risk of equine activity” means those dangers or conditions which are an integral part of equine activities, including, but not limited to:
(a) the propensity of an equine to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm, or death to a person on or around the equine;
(b) the unpredictability of an equine's reaction to sound, sudden movement, an unfamiliar object, a person, or another animal;
(c) certain hazards such as surface and subsurface conditions;
(d) collisions with other equines 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, as failing to maintain control over the animal or not acting within the participant's ability.

In the case of SC a warning sign is required or else the immunity is revoked.

".....must contain the following warning notice:

WARNING
Under South Carolina law, an equine activity sponsor or equine professional is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant in an equine activity resulting from an inherent risk of equine activity, pursuant to Article 7, Chapter 9 of Title 47, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976.

(C) Failure to comply with the requirements concerning warning signs and notices provided in this section prevents an equine activity sponsor or equine professional from invoking the privileges of immunity provided by this article."


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

Roux said:


> the farm owners did nothing to separate the horses from vegetable purchasers.


The farm took no precautions and that was foolish.


Roux said:


> This is a real lose lose and hopefully won't have horrible repercussions for the horse industry in that state.


I doubt that it will.


----------



## Shoebox (Apr 18, 2012)

Actually, from what I've read, if it passes and horses are listed as naturally vicious animals horse owners will not be able to be insured. 

This might be wrong, I'm just throwing out what I heard. So feel free to correct me.

I think the whole case is stupid. Of course horses can be vicious. I feel like this should be covered in the "the propensity of an equine to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm, or death to a person on or around the equine" section of the equine liability statute. If you wouldn't approach a dog without permission don't approach a horse. (I realize that while they didn't 'get permission' the farm owners didn't stop them. But still.)


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

They had a FENCE. It's not like it was walking around amongst the groceries.
Pool's are required to be fenced for insurance purposes...

EVERYTHING is dangerous to a baby.
Did the stand have a gravel floor? I bet they made sure the baby didn't eat one and choke.
Are there bugs outside? I bet they haven't had their baby tested for allergy reactions from bee stings... I bet they also WALKED from their car into the booth.
Were there doors? I bet they didn't let their baby smash it's fingers in them...

Wish I could have been their lawyer.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

While it may be ideal for the horses to be separated from the "veggie buyers" it's their home first and foremost and while it may be urban Hollywood legend that you can go up to *any* animal and have a snuggle fest, the parents should have known better. You need to ask permission! For any animal! Even I know that about cats, dogs, etc. If I go to someone's house and accost their cat and end up with a scratched up face, would I sue? NO! I'd feel foolish for not asking and would never do it again. Even if it was my kid, my lover, my best friend.. I wouldn't get all sue happy!

Horses can only see so far infront of them, and at different angles. I'm sure that they didn't go out of their way to be mean or they would have reacted the same way towards the father. They're herd animals, that work off of a pecking order too. They communicate differently to something like a dog.

It just boggles my mind.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Roux said:


> ...My own opinion is that I hate frivolous law suits as much as the next person but put yourself in the shoes of the family. Their baby son was permanently disfigured what would you do? He wasn't just nipped, there was a serious injury to a BABY!
> 
> As far as the BO I feel bad for them too. After almost 30 years of no problems this falls in their laps. I feel sympathy for both parties...


I'm taking paralegal classes. I wrote a paper last semester on frivolous lawsuits. I think a large percentage of civil cases are frivolous, as was this one. From the decision:

"_In his deposition testimony, Astriab corroborated that assessment. He acknowledged that horses, by their very nature, could harm a person who attempted to pet or feed them, stating that "a horse could bite you and cause great physical damage." He understood that even though a particular horse had not previously displayed a propensity to bite, horses by their very nature could bite a person. Based on his experience, Astriab was "well aware" that horses can bite people. He also testified that although he had no knowledge of Scuppy biting a person prior to the May 18, 2006 incident, Scuppy was no different from other horses that would bite if a finger was put in front of him. Significantly, Astriab acknowledged his concern that if someone made contact with Scuppy, whether to pet or feed him, they could get bit. When asked whether "a person who doesn't know Scuppy . . . can go up to Scuppy, put [his] hand out and the horse, being a horse, could bite that person," Astriab answered, "[y]es." Although cognizant of the fact that customers of Glendale Farms enjoyed seeing the horses on the property and mindful that he could have erected a barrier between the customers and the horses, Astriab testified that he chose not to do so.

Thus, the evidence before the court indicates that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether horses as a class possess a natural tendency to bite, possibly causing great physical damage to a person, even if a particular horse had not previously displayed that propensity. Accord 3 Restatement (Second), supra, § 518, comment (e), p. 31 (recognizing "likelihood that even a well-broken mare or gelding that had never shown a propensity to bite . . . may do so" in certain circumstances). Because that propensity is one that might endanger the safety of person or property in a given situation; see Mann v. Regan, supra, 108 Conn. App. 580; it necessarily is a vicious propensity, albeit one normal to its class. *Unlike the cat in Bischoff, which by its nature is "one of the most tame and harmless of all domestic animals*"; Bischoff v. Cheney, supra, 89 Conn. 5; *Astriab's own testimony demonstrates that Scuppy belongs to "a species naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious *. . . ." Id., 4. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, Astriab's testimony thus indicates that the injury suffered by the plaintiff son was a foreseeable one, and the defendants had a "duty to use reasonable care to restraint the animal in such a manner as to prevent its doing injury . . . ." Id._" 

IOW, as a horse owner, you must protect anyone on your property from not figuring out a big, strong animal can do harm. When I was a kid, my parents taught me that if I messed with strange dogs, I might be bitten. If I messed with a cat, I might be bitten or scratched. And all of us just assumed, not being incredibly stupid, that a large & powerful animal can hurt you without trying.

This is yet another example of courts trying to hold thinking people responsible for the acts of idiots, and doing it under the guise of the law. I see this in many cases. A woman enters a construction zone (that she has known about for a year, and admits she knew they were digging trenches and other hazards) stumbles where a sidewalk was dug out, and sues the construction company because they didn't take steps to force her to stay away.

In Arizona, a girl has her hand crushed when she has the lead rope wrapped around her hand, and they sue and win because the equine liability law only covers you when you have control of the horse, and the court defines 'control' as when you are sitting on the horse. 

In the famous McDonald's hot coffee case, a woman gets a cup of coffee from McDonalds, puts it between her legs, takes the lid off, spills it, and the 185 deg coffee gives her 3rd degree burns. And the court says McDonald's is responsible, even knowing that the national standards for coffee makers say the coffee maker should heat the coffee to 170-205 deg (ave 187.5)

At some point, people and parents need to take responsibility for themselves and their children, instead of suing left & right to get money. And at some point, the courts need to understand that every time a defendant has to spend several hundred thousand dollars defending themselves from ridiculous charges, a grave evil is done to society. 

Suppose a kid runs up to my horse, she spooks a little, and in the process kicks him. Am I responsible for the kid's injuries? Was I negligent for riding a dangerous animal on a public street? What use is a horse, if they cannot be ridden? At what point do parents and even small kids need to understand that big animals are dangerous? If the kid is 2, then why is the parent free from responsibility to monitor the kid?

The courts have gone mad. But since the courts are 'policed' by lawyers, you can bet nothing will happen to reduce the number of stupid cases brought. :evil:


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

I must say this case, in my opinion, is laughable. How parents could be ignorant of the risk involved with dealing with horses (1,000+ lb PREY animals) is beyond me. Any animal can, and will, bite. I sort of thought that was Animal Knowledge 101.

When I was younger, a liability waiver had to be filled out when riding horses. That's a given. Recently I brought a nonhorse friend of mine to visit my jumper. I didn't even think to have her sign something, but she needed to to even BE on the property.

Where has everyone's common sense gone? Surely, these parents wouldn't allow their infant to run up to a strange dog? This is a case of poor parenting, not poor barn ownership. 

If this were my child (another poster asked me to put myself in their shoes), I would definitely blame MYSELF. I should have been watching them more carefully. It's a barn, not a frick'n ball pit.


----------



## rookie (May 14, 2012)

I agree that the parents were negligent in this case not the barn owner. Life is unpredictable and sometimes things happen. This is double true of animals. I do believe there are horses out there that where the label vicious may be applied. These are horses that will come after you guns blazing. Horse people prevent those horses from coming into contact with people. 

How many of us have a pasture full of horses and only a fence between them and the world? We have had people introduce, babies, kids, dogs and very bewildered cats (seriously want to see an angry cat, put it in a car and drive it to the vets and then have it "meet a horsey"). The point is that we have been incredibly lucky because our horses are smart enough (kind enough?) to leave the area when they don't want to be around people. Most people don't crawl through the fence to continue visiting with them, but some have crawled through the fence. 90% of them are completely ignorant of the electric fence. We always figured that if you were negligent enough as a parent to let your kid play near the electric fence then it was natures way of teaching your kid not to play near the fence. If we caught you in with the horses you were going to have a public embarrassment/lecture regardless of age. This would tell you just how stupid you were for doing that and how lucky you are to still have your head attached to your body (not that you were using it to begin with). We fence the horses in to keep them safe and sometimes I think we should really fence the people in to keep them safe. 

If we have all done our part by putting our horses behind fences, labeled those fences, have electric on those fences than what more do we need to put on that fence to keep the idiots away from the horses? Razor wire? A giant flashing "don't touch" sign? When did we loose all common sense? It makes me sad because I think we are loosing our touch with animals. 60-100 years ago this would never be an issue because kids and parents grew up around animals and knew what to expect. Its an animal not a toy.


----------



## KigerQueen (Jun 16, 2013)

My bf's boss is dealing with something similar. He has a waver everyone who enters the property has to sign. He also has state statute posted on the main gate. A Kid was leading a horse (a lady was using her horses and giving lessons not having people sign the waver and not telling the owner what she was doing) the horse spooked and the kids finger was caught in the rope and was ripped off. He is still dealing with the suit regardless of statute. I get nerves now anytime ANYONE gets within snot flinging range of my horse -_-'. Yay for sates not paying attention to statutes. And from what I hear around here wavers are pretty much useless when it come to sue happy people.


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

My motto, and I instill it in ALL my students (or any kid I meet for that matter), is *if it has teeth it bites!! * Now I can see suing if the child was bitten in an unprovoked attack, like if the child was just standing by the fence and the horse came over and just bit him. But hello, your touching a strange animal! Would you walk up to any loose dog on the street and start petting him? None the less let your two year old child interact with it?! I really cannot believe what this world is coming to... 

Also, as a property owner, I'd be covering my but the best I could. I'd line that side of the paddock with electric fencing to keep the horses out and the people in! Post signs that say do not feed/touch the horses or *signs that say "I bite!" *, and make sure my employees know to promptly shoo guests away. A few hundred dollars could save me a few million in the long run! Can't trust anyone these days!


----------



## flytobecat (Mar 28, 2010)

I'm with FlyGap on the this. 
The horses weren't loose, they were enclosed in a fence, and the parents walked over to the fence to pet the horses. How is this the farm owners fault.
Is the farm owner supposed to post a sign stating "beware equines are dangerous", and if they are how many signs per feet? And do the signs need to be in English and Spanish? Do you need to make special arrangements for people who can't read or are blind? 
I mean seriously when do people start taking responsibilities for their own actions or do we need a formal block of instructions on every aspect of our daily life.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

Roux said:


> I definitely understand the perspective that the parents and the child are at fault and I am in no way trying to blame the BO.
> 
> But put yourself in their shoes. I am sure we have all been in a situation where we didn't know what we were doing and weren't aware of the danger. To us horse people it is obvious that horses can be dangerous and easy to say "stupid people" should know better. There are so many people who are not fortunate enough to have experience with horses. If you know nothing about horses you would have no idea that they could bite. I feel sympathy for this family, I am not condoning the suit but I don't think there is any reason to criticize this family. Accident's happen and I don't think it is fair to blame this family. Imagine if your baby suffered an injury that required surgery it would be devastating and expensive.
> 
> ...


In point of fact the court CAN bring up the statute and they usually do if a lawyer hasn't already. I've had to listen to too many judges point out what the law "says", "requires", etc.... along with pointing out cases for precedent. Most of the judges I've dealt with have been pretty up on all that, but it's possible that this judge just didn't have a clue (that would beg the question of why is in that position though :lol:, but they I'm already questioning the number of, if any, functioning brain cells he or she has).

I've never met anyone who didn't have a clue that horses could pose a danger risk. Unless they had some form of mental disability that prevented them from thinking in a normal, rational manner. A normal person who is not familiar with horses is generally a bit apprehensive about being so up close and personal with them unless they are safely behind a barrier of some sort (which they were in this case). Indeed, it's usually people who are well familiar with a type of animal (in this case we'll use the horse and not camels, elephants, bison, etc....) that tend to have the least amount of fear and are most often injured by them.

While there are historical cases where a horse has actually gone on a killing rampage those are extremely rare and isolated cases. You have better odds of being attacked by pig (in fact that's not uncommon at all, but no one is classifying them as visious).

Of course there is always the chance that the CT legislature will realize that this judge needs help, be removed and put under the professional care before pigs, goats, chickens, ducks, geese, cattle (all of which I've been attacked by), along with rabbits, squirrels (which my oldest son has been bitten by) and every animal with the ability to bit or some manner inflict pain on a child becomes classified as a vicious animal in CT.
No one will be able to own a pet in CT, because everything is vicious based on this judges legal opinion. I've never known any animal that wouldn't bit if it didn't want you too near it. In some cases even while feeding it.

What's next. Some kid sticks his finger in a power outlet and is killed so the hotel (or whatever) is sued because they did't have their power outlets over 60" above the floor so children couldn't access them? No, the court would say that the parents were negligent. That's the case here too. If daddy takes sonny to see horsey, then daddy better keep an eye on sonny and horsey.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Many courts have totally rejected the idea of individual responsibility. The standard has gone from 'reasonable precaution' to 'ensure total safety'. In many cases, it comes down to facilitating greed - greed by both the plaintiff and the lawyers.

The lawyer in this case ought to be facing sanctions for bringing a frivolous case. But lawyers are already in oversupply, so there isn't much chance their fellow lawyers on the bench or in the legislatures are going to restrict their ability to sue anyone for any reason, beyond all reason.


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

This incident took place in the town I currently live in. The farm in question mostly sells produce. They have a small horse boarding operation in one area of the property. There is a very large sign stating that the area is only available to horse owners. The plaintiffs in this case ignored the sign, got themselves into trouble, and have the nerve to cry foul over their own poor decision. 

The court date was yesterday. I am happy to report the room was absolutely packed with horse owners. A public comment period was allowed. Arguments were well thought out. It didn't seem like a witch hunt to shut down the horse industry, but will most likely result in some need for increased signage. (not that anyone reads them or else this case would not exist) Connecticut alone is a $220 million dollar a year industry. In an era where states are always looking for new sources of revenue, it would be extremely foolish to rule in any way that would inhibit it.


----------



## PixiTrix (Sep 11, 2013)

All I have to say is this is the most retarded thing I've ever heard of.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

MyBoyPuck said:


> This incident took place in the town I currently live in. The farm in question mostly sells produce. They have a small horse boarding operation in one area of the property. There is a very large sign stating that the area is only available to horse owners. The plaintiffs in this case ignored the sign, got themselves into trouble, and have the nerve to cry foul over their own poor decision.
> 
> The court date was yesterday. I am happy to report the room was absolutely packed with horse owners. A public comment period was allowed. Arguments were well thought out. It didn't seem like a witch hunt to shut down the horse industry, but will most likely result in some need for increased signage. (not that anyone reads them or else this case would not exist) Connecticut alone is a $220 million dollar a year industry. In an era where states are always looking for new sources of revenue, it would be extremely foolish to rule in any way that would inhibit it.


Thanks for the inside scoop! At least people were sensible about it! Nothing worse than outbursts and high emotions in court.


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

Skyseternalangel said:


> Thanks for the inside scoop! At least people were sensible about it! Nothing worse than outbursts and high emotions in court.


We're trying. We've been circling the wagons for weeks on this one. We have a very active horse council with lots of presence in the state. One of the few benefits of living in a small state. If I find myself in that part of town, I will snap a pic of the sign to show you all how butt stupid this case is. I actually looked at this place to board Puck when I first got him since it would have been a 10 minute drive instead of the 40 I am now doing. One of the main reasons I did not do it, was because other owners told me that people frequently ignore the sign and take their kids over to visit the "horsies" like it's **** petting zoo. I don't know what more Tim could have done to keep them out. It's not an area that could have been easily gated off or anything. 

I do know, in cases of riding injuries in CT, if you knowingly and willingly got on the horse, you're on your own for the most part if you get hurt. Very few people win frivilous lawsuits where riding is concerned. 

I hope what comes out more than anything, is how hypocritical the plaintiff's argument is. If they are saying that horses are plain and simply dangerous, why on earth would they approach such a monster with a child? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the holes in their logic.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

MyBoyPuck said:


> I hope what comes out more than anything, is how hypocritical the plaintiff's argument is. If they are saying that horses are plain and simply dangerous, why on earth would they approach such a monster with a child? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the holes in their logic.


You're absolutely right! I didn't even think to consider that logic. I hope that someone brings it up when there is public commentry allowed again.


----------



## Marcie (Jul 25, 2013)

MyBoyPuck said:


> We're trying. We've been circling the wagons for weeks on this one. We have a very active horse council with lots of presence in the state. One of the few benefits of living in a small state. If I find myself in that part of town, I will snap a pic of the sign to show you all how butt stupid this case is. I actually looked at this place to board Puck when I first got him since it would have been a 10 minute drive instead of the 40 I am now doing. One of the main reasons I did not do it, was because other owners told me that people frequently ignore the sign and take their kids over to visit the "horsies" like it's **** petting zoo. I don't know what more Tim could have done to keep them out. It's not an area that could have been easily gated off or anything.
> 
> I do know, in cases of riding injuries in CT, if you knowingly and willingly got on the horse, you're on your own for the most part if you get hurt. Very few people win frivilous lawsuits where riding is concerned.
> 
> I hope what comes out more than anything, is how hypocritical the plaintiff's argument is. If they are saying that horses are plain and simply dangerous, why on earth would they approach such a monster with a child? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the holes in their logic.


I completely agree! Not logical at all.. I really want to see a picture of this place now. It doesn't sound too different then the places around here. Imo it doesn't matter what kind of farm it is (cows, chickens, horses) if you're just walking by or there to get produce you don't get close to animals you don't know, especially if there are signs specifying owners only. The parents really should have respected the signage and known better then to go pet animals they had no right to. I really feel for that little kid and it sucks that he had to pay the price for his parent's sense of privilege.


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

06461 Real Estate & 06461 Homes For Sale - Zillow

This is a bird's eye view of the place. It is a plant nursery/produce place. The horses are over on the far right of the property. You can see the ring to the right of the greenhouses. Plant customers are supposed to go in and park where you see the cars at the bottom middle of the screen. However, it is only a short walk to ignore the signs and go visit the horses, so it does frequently happen. I don't have a day off until Monday, but if I have time, I will go snap a few pics.


----------



## xlntperuvian (Jul 1, 2012)

Roux said:


> I feel sympathy for this family, I am not condoning the suit but I don't think there is any reason to criticize this family. Accident's happen and I don't think it is fair to blame this family.


As you say, accidents happen. If it's not fair to blame the family then it's equally unfair to blame the property owner. 

As a result of the publicity surrounding this accident perhaps a few parents will be more careful with their kids. But you can be certain that an even larger number of horse owners will be more alert to the potential law suit grazing out in their paddock.


----------



## ForeverSunRider (Jun 27, 2013)

When I was about 7 or so, we owned eight horses. My mom would take me out to the barn with her to feed. She gave me specific instructions to stay on the outside of the fence or by the front door to the barn so I didn't get hurt. Stupid little me decided one day that I wanted to watch the pretty ponies run, so I went and stood in the middle of the shoot leading from the pasture to the barn. Guess what happened? All eight of those horses that were loping to the barn to be fed in a giant herd all trampled me. And guess what my mom did when she found me? She told me how stupid I was to disobey her like that and that now I should think twice before doing something so dumb. 

Horses aren't vicious. They're big animals and if you get in their way, odds are you won't be winning.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I was in a paralegal torts class last night. I brought this up as an example of the courts going nuts. FWIW, almost everyone in the class, including the instructor, thought that horses qualify as an "attractive nuisance" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine), meaning that kids are naturally attracted to them. Without exception, they thought horse owners should be required to have child-proof fences that physical separate trespassers from a horse corral or pasture by enough distance to make it impossible for physical contact. 

However, they did agree that if the fencing met the zoning laws, then the owner MIGHT not be liable.

Not a single student or the instructor thought to ask, "What is the legal definition of a dangerous or vicious animal?" Nor did any student or instructor think to ask, "What was the parent doing?" Add that to discussions in previous classes, and there seems to be no concept of individual responsibility. Personally, I'd rather go unemployed than work for an attorney who works for plaintiffs in injury cases. Heck, I'd as soon be emasculated as work for one of those leeches...:evil:

*Now you know why I'm terrified of our legal system.* You would be better off in west Tucson with a judge reviewing your horse case than a 'jury of your peers'!


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

https://www.change.org/petitions/ct...ut-horses-are-inherently-vicious-docket-18949

Okay folks, here's a petition regarding this ruling. Sign it and make your voice heard. Time to take back this country from frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## tlkng1 (Dec 14, 2011)

I didn't wade through all of the responses but the additional article I read said the father of the 4 yr old boy lifted the boy to the fence to feed the horse despite the signs clearly displayed that read, do not feed or pet the horses.

This was a lower court issue and CT is famous for them. It is a coward's ruling in order to keep the family of the victim (in any type case) from going ballistic. It then takes extra time and money to bring the case up before the higher courts who have more brains (sometimes) to overturn the ruling.

In an unrelated case, the city of New Haven threw out the results of a firefighter's advancement exam because not enough minorities passed..the accusation form those that didn't pass was that the exam was prejudiced against minorities...didn't matter that everyone got the list of study material, the SAME list of study material, months prior to the exams. Those that were up for promotion rightfully fought the ruling but it was upheld by the higher court in the state. They ended up taking it all the way to the SCOTUS before the results were reinstated and the firefighters were finally advanced. 

The state of CT had an independent company write the exams SPECIFICALLY to avoid any prejudicial issues and the resulting exams were approved for administration.


----------



## Chevaux (Jun 27, 2012)

Good for posting the petition, MyBoyPuck. However, given I'm a non citizen I suspect it nul for me to sign (otherwise I would).


----------



## swimminchikin (Feb 27, 2013)

tlkng1 said:


> I didn't wade through all of the responses but the additional article I read said the father of the 4 yr old boy lifted the boy to the fence to feed the horse despite the signs clearly displayed that read, do not feed or pet the horse.


I heard this too. Not sure what it's.worth, but I also heard the child was held over the top of the fence with grass to feed the horse. 

Thankfully my two are are in a pasture surrounded by other pastures to keep them safe from two legged predators and their removable limbs... 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

I continually have to tell people those are nostrils at the end of his face, not eyes.


----------



## LadyDreamer (Jan 25, 2008)

Here are the newest developments. Horses have been declared vicious. 

Supreme Court Finds Horses Are “Naturally” Vicious Â« CBS Connecticut


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

Isn't this the same state that decreed eminent domain in New London and NOW the properties sit empty?
Justices Affirm Property Seizures
The devastation caused by eminent-domain abuse - Opinion - Boston.com
I Am SORRY for any of you who live in CT.


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

How would this ruling impact horses being used in therapeutic centers and such around children?


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

This ruling could destroy a multi billion dollar horse industry. The domino effect could be horrific.


----------



## EquineObsessed (May 24, 2013)

I'm so disgusted. Look at all of these vicious horses. In New Hampshire. Right by CT. Hopeful that these laws won't spread through New England.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I live in CT so have been following this - it never ceases to amaze me that people still think its OK to walk along a stretch of river bank that we own and then encourage our horses to go over to them by offering treats.
My horses don't bite people but it would be very easy for a human to get caught up in between two horses nipping each other while competing for those treats
It's people that need educating not horse owners that need more red tape to


----------



## LadyDreamer (Jan 25, 2008)

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!
The Simpsons - Helen Lovejoy - Think of the children - YouTube
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

LadyDreamer said:


> Here are the newest developments. Horses have been declared vicious.
> 
> Supreme Court Finds Horses Are “Naturally” Vicious Â« CBS Connecticut


This is incorrect. What the ruling said is that horses can have a propensity to be vicious, which is very different from saying "all are vicious". They are going to handle things on a case by case basis. The burden of proof will be on the plaintiff to prove that the horse was known vicious animal which is not the case in the Milford case that started this mess. They will most likely lose their case with this definition since the horse involved had been at the barn for 28 years with zero issues. 

I think this is an acceptable ruling. Nobody here can contradict than any horse at any time is completely safe. Even the sweetest ones can have their moments. Most of us have to sign liability releases just to work with our own horses at boarding barns. I like that the burden of proof is where it lies, and it will be a wakeup call for any horse owners who may currently be a bit lax on safety to clean things up a bit.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Corporal said:


> I Am SORRY for any of you who live in CT.


Pretty funny to read this from someone who lives in a state that is famous for corruption. :wink:


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

I love CT. Our legislature already has a bill proposed to shield us from liability from dumb people.


----------



## Emma2003 (Jan 9, 2014)

Wow! I love the picture of those vicious, man eating beasts:rofl: As usual, the media is in fine form, using sensational pictures to grab people's attention, then printing only one side of the story. Was it a "petting zoo" type of situation? If that was the case, hopefully, signs were posted and/or staff made visitors aware of potential risks involving interactions with the animals. If the horse was on private property, then it was the parents' negligence/ignorance/stupidity for letting a child interact with an animal they don't know, whether it is a dog, a cat, a sheep, a hamster, etc. I would like to see pictures as well as a doctor's report on those "serious injuries". Is the child severely disfigured for life or is it just a few stitches or some bruising? I think if the parents and judge had any sense this case never would have happened. Even before becoming a horse owner, if I had read this same story, I would have thought it came down to personal accountability unless the horse was running amok on public property. Humans can be such losers!


----------

