Conn. Court Decides on Horses’ Propensity to Cause Harm

The Connecticut Supreme Court skirted the issue of whether horses are by nature a vicious species, ruling instead that horse owners and keepers have “a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent injuries.”
Share
Favorite
Please login

No account yet? Register

ADVERTISEMENT

On March 26, the Connecticut Supreme Court skirted the issue of whether horses are by nature a vicious species, ruling instead that horse owners and keepers have “a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent injuries that are foreseeable because the animal belongs to a species or breed that is naturally inclined to cause such injuries, and that the owner may be held liable for negligence if he or she fails to take such reasonable steps and an injury results.” This duty would result in court decisions on a case-by-case basis.

The case stems from 2006 when a toddler was bitten by a horse on property belonging to the animal's owner, Timothy Astriab, when the child’s father held him up to pet the horse over the fence, despite posted signs asking visitors not to pet or feed the pastured horses. Initially, in 2010, a court in New Haven sided with the horse owner. But an appellate court overturned that ruling in February 2012, resulting in the Supreme Court case decided Wednesday.

Fred Mastele, acting president of the Connecticut Horse Council (CHC), expressed concern about how the decision will affect the Astriab family and horse owners in general. Mastele's concerns include what steps the family should have taken to protect people from their horses; how owners and keepers are expected to protect the public from their horses; if new legislation would be enacted regarding fencing, public activities, transporting horses through Connecticut, requirements for trainers and lesson horses, horse camps, and therapeutic riding programs.

“The CHC is in the process of absorbing and processing the information from the decision,” said Mastele. “However, in my opinion, what the Supreme Court has done is support the appellate court’s decision of reversal and said … 'as a matter of law, the owner or keeper of a domestic animal has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the animal from causing injures that are foreseeable because the animal belongs to a class of animals that is naturally inclined to cause such injuries, regardless of whether the animal had previously caused an injury or was roaming at large

Create a free account with TheHorse.com to view this content.

TheHorse.com is home to thousands of free articles about horse health care. In order to access some of our exclusive free content, you must be signed into TheHorse.com.

Start your free account today!

Already have an account?
and continue reading.

Share

Written by:

Diane Rice earned her bachelor’s degree in agricultural journalism from the University of Wisconsin, then married her education with her lifelong passion for horses by working in editorial positions at Appaloosa Journal for 12 years. She has also served on the American Horse Publications’ board of directors. She now freelances in writing, editing, and proofreading. She lives in Middleton, Idaho, and spends her spare time gardening, reading, serving in her church, and spending time with her daughters, their families, and a myriad of her own and other people’s pets.

Related Articles

Stay on top of the most recent Horse Health news with

FREE weekly newsletters from TheHorse.com

Sponsored Content

Weekly Poll

sponsored by:

How do you prevent gastric ulcers in horses? Please check all that apply.
160 votes · 374 answers

Readers’ Most Popular

Sign In

Don’t have an account? Register for a FREE account here.

Need to update your account?

You need to be logged in to fill out this form

Create a free account with TheHorse.com!