Horses and the Law
FARRIERS AND THE LAW

Disclaimer - This article is intended as general discussion and information on the topic covered, and is not to be construed as rendering legal advice. If legal advice is needed, you should contact an attorney. This article may not be reprinted or reproduced in any manner without prior written permission of the author.

“Shoe the horse, shoe the mare

But let the little colt go bare”

Anonymous nursery rhyme– ”Mother Goose Tales”–first published in 1765.

Have you ever thought about a farrier’s responsibility to a horse owner? Have you ever thought about a farrier’s responsibility to the horse? Have you ever thought about the owner’s responsibility to the farrier? What if a farrier is seriously injured while shoeing your horse? Who, if anyone, is responsible? This article will discuss the above topics and hope to clarify some of the issues raised.

We begin our analysis by noting that farriers are essentially not regulated by law. Although some states have a farrier license requirement, this is basically for those who wish to work within the confines of the race track and essentially involves registering and paying a fee. Illinois, however, does require a license for all farriers. The Illinois legal requirements are (1) must be 16, (2) a U.S. citizen or legal alien and (3) you must pay $65. That’s it. The license is good for one year after which, a $25 annual renewal fee is required to maintain your license. When I last checked, Illinois had 53 licensed farriers and it appears the law is not a high priority for compliance.

Most of the farriers out there are not licensed and not regulated by governmental agency. Although there are many farrier organizations with certification programs, this is all voluntary and not required before you hang out your farrier shingle. With that in mind, is there or should there be a code of conduct for farriers to live by?

Every farrier should exercise the highest degree of care and skill in trimming and shoeing horses. Unskilled trimming and shoeing can cause serious damage and must be avoided. Farriers should also relieve pain in a horse by corrective shoeing if required and the farrier should be competent to apply corrective shoeing methods if needed. If a farrier is not skilled in corrective shoeing, then the farrier should refer the horse owner to a farrier who is.

The farrier’s responsibility, however, not only runs to the horse but to the horse owner as well. Good “bedside” manner is also a requirement. Not returning phone calls, not showing up for appointments and tardiness are to be avoided when possible. The farrier owes his client the courtesy of good relations and communication.

With this in mind, it should be noted that responsibility runs both ways. The horse owner also owes the farrier certain responsibilities. The owner should provide a work facility which is clean and safe. The owner should also disclose all bad habits and behavior of the horse to the farrier so the farrier can take extra precaution to prevent injury to himself or to the horse if need be.

What happens in the case of injury to the farrier while shoeing your horse? In most states, farriers, unless directly employed by the owner, are considered independent contractors and are not covered under the owner’s workmen’s compensation insurance. This is not true in all states. Some states do cover the farrier and it is wise to check with your state law to determine if workmen’s compensation coverage is provided to the farrier in the case of injury while shoeing someone else’s horses.

The first case to be reviewed in this area is the case of Burnaman v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Insurance Company, 714 SO. 2d 799, 1988. In this case, the Plaintiff, Burnaman, was a farrier who regularly tended to the feet of the owner’s horses. The farrier provided services to the owner for approximately five years prior to the accident and had performed those services once every four to six weeks. The farrier, when working on a horse, would tie the horse to the tailgate of his truck. The farrier had never experienced any trouble shoeing the owner’s horses in the past.

On the day in question the Plaintiff was shoeing a gelding named Banner, with a Shetland mare named Pumpkin and her colt in the same area. As the farrier was working on a hind hoof, Pumpkin decided to bite Banner thereby causing Banner to jerk his foot forward throwing the farrier to the ground and causing injury. Banner continued to try to get away from Pumpkin and after the farrier calmed Banner, he put Pumpkin and the colt into a stall.

Upon leaving the farm, the farrier was told by the owner that earlier Banner had been chasing Pumpkin and had an altercation. As a result, the farrier sued the owner and the case went to a jury trial. The jury found in favor of the horse owner and against the farrier. The case was appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals held that under state law, the horse owners were not liable for injuries caused to the farrier because there was no proof that the gelding, Banner, was unreasonably dangerous and had exhibited signs of improper conduct in the past.

The Court held the fact that the two horses may have fought earlier did not make the horse owner liable for failing to notify the farrier of this fact. The farrier should have been aware that horses do interact with one another and by permitting the second horse and her colt, unrestrained, in the same area as the horse the farrier was working on was risky and should not have been permitted.

The second case to be reviewed is the case of Blose v. Ponca Hills Farm, 562 N.W. 2d 363 (1997) Nebraska Supreme Court. The Plaintiff Blose was a farrier who regularly serviced the horses of the owner, Ponca Hill Farms. One of the horses was a 2,000-pound Clydesdale, which was very difficult to catch and would pull away from the handler when led to a paddock. The Clydesdale had been confined in a corral for a number of days before the farrier arrived to shoe him. The plan was for the horse to be shod in the corral.

When a farm employee attempted to catch the horse, she could not. Without being asked, Blose, the farrier entered the corral to assist. The farrier was aware that the Clydesdale, named Saint Nicholas, had a reputation for bolting or pulling away before the lead rope could be removed and was rather difficult to handle at times. Blose had been Saint’s farrier for a number of years and an employee of the farm would normally hold Saint when Blose worked on him.

As an employee of the farm attempted to catch Saint, the horse began to lope around the paddock and Blose entered the paddock and attempted to corner the horse. When Blose moved toward Saint and extended his left arm and waved it, Saint took a step back, turned and jumped over the paddock fence. Saint broke the top board of the fence as he went over and part of the board came loose and hit Blose on the head rendering him unconscious. The blow fractured Blose’s skull, bruised his brain and left Blose in a coma for almost two weeks. Blose had no memory of the day of the accident.

Blose sued the owner for damages and alleged that Saint had developed dangerous propensities known to the owner, which posed an unreasonable risk of harm to him.

After trial, the Court found in favor of the horse owner. The case was appealed all the way to the Nebraska Supreme Court who affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court noted there was no evidence that the owners were negligent in any manner whatsoever. The horse had never jumped a fence before and the fact that he pulled back and was difficult to hold was not closely related to the fence jumping which caused the injury in this case. In addition, the farrier was familiar with the behavior of the horse and voluntarily assisted knowing that the animal was dangerous to catch. As such, the farrier assumed the risk of injury and was unsuccessful in suing the owner for damages.

The final case to be reviewed is the case of Hiller v. Huyck, Minnesota Court of Appeals, 1996 W.L. 45178. Cynthia Hiller, a farrier, agreed to trim the hooves of a horse owned by Marsha Huyck. Huyck had recently purchased the horse and there was evidence that Huyck was aware that the horse had a reputation as being a “kicker.” The owner told the farrier that the horse was “sore.” The owner did not tell the farrier that the horse had a reputation for being a kicker. The farrier trimmed the horse’s front hooves without incident. When she picked up the left rear hoof, the horse jolted, throwing her backward four or five feet. The farrier then applied a twitch and as she began trimming the horse’s right rear hoof, the horse kicked Hiller, seriously injuring her knee.

Hiller sued to recover damages for her knee injury. She based her claim on the owner’s failure to disclose the horse’s history of kicking. The farrier stated that if she knew the horse was a kicker, she would have refused the job or taken extra precaution. The owner argued that Hiller, a farrier, subjected herself to certain occupational dangers and that Hiller is barred from recovering under the Doctrine of Primary Assumption of Risk.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the lower Court’s decision in favor of the owner and remanded the case for a trial on the merits. The Appellate Court held that failing to disclose to the farrier the fact that the horse was a kicker could be negligence on behalf of the horse owner. Failing to disclose this information prevented the farrier from fully anticipating the risk of being kicked or increased her risk without her knowledge.

In short, the Appeals Court said that the owner may have been negligent in this case of failing to warn the farrier and the case needs to be tried before a jury to determine if, in fact, that should be the proper result. No results of trial are reported and the case was probably settled out of Court.

In conclusion, farriers continue to be an independent breed of professionals. Although unregulated for the most part, each farrier should develop a code of conduct, which ensures competent care to the horse and good relations with the horse owner. The horse owner, in turn should provide a safe and clean environment for the farrier and disclose all known behavior of the horse to the farrier so the farrier can exercise proper precaution.

The law recognizes that this profession contains occupational hazards and, as can been seen by reviewing the above cases, a farrier will have a difficult time prevailing in a lawsuit unless there is non-disclosure of material facts concerning dangerous propensities of the horse.

Enough legal talk–it’s time to hitch horses.

Ken is a practicing attorney in Myerstown, Pennsylvania, where a good bit of his practice involves negligence cases. Ken and his wife, Karen, own Sunny Hill Farm Belgians, and they have been exhibiting their six horse hitch for the past few years at most major shows in the east.

Ken is a practicing attorney in Myerstown, Pennsylvania, where a good bit of his practice involves negligence cases. Ken and his wife, Karen, own Sunny Hill Farm Belgians, and they have been exhibiting their six horse hitch for the past few years at most major shows in the east.