We live in an equestrian development and have three horses. Our house backs up to the pastures. The sub is full of kids and stupid parents so we put up a "DO NOT FEED THE HORSES" sign for fear of one or our horses taking a kid's finger off inadvertently. This does nothing to stop parents allowing their kids (indluding very small kids) from feeding the horses. They feed the horses at the sign even. We've done everything from yell from the house, to drive down there and ask warned the parents that horses are rather large animals and potentially quite dangerous. Nothing does any good. Besides dodging liability for a lost finger, we don't want people feeding our horses things that may cause them to colic. My wife just called to tell me that the electric fence must not be hot because the neighbor lady is letting her kid hang on to it leaning into the pasture to feed the horses. (I can't believe people are so freaking stupid!)
You think the sign covers our arses? Or should I just start shooting at people that don't comply with our sign?
__________________
We were made by God and for God, and until you figure that out, life isn't going to make sense.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be.
Data's right, there was a story last year of a guy in California that owned a tiger (somehow he owned it legally) there were signs all over the place but some kid put his arm in the cage and the puddy tat took it off.
I believe the signs should cover you against stupid people. If all the fence and signs, etc, are on your property and you plainly tell people to keep off or not feed the animals, if they do they are committing criminal trespass and you can have them prosecuted.
I would warn them once then if they continue, call the police, or videotape them for evidence in any criminal or possible civil action.
You might remove the "DO NOT FEED THE HORSES" sign and replace it with "WARNING: THESE HORSES ARE CONTAMINATED WITH HARMFUL RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES" or "WARNING" THESE HORSES ARE CARRIERS OF EBOLA VIRUS."
Well, on second thought, that would probably just get you more trouble. Maybe you could refine this to warn of some non-existent or harmless threat which may nonetheless cause people to keep their distance. "WARNING: THESE HORSE HAVE RECENTLY BEEN EXPOSED TO COSMIC RAYS." Of course, we are exposed to cosmic rays -- radiation emitted by remote stellar objects -- all the time, people at higher altitudes more than those of us lowlanders. Again, though, this might be more trouble as frantic neighbors hire ambitious lawyers more than ready to sue to have your dangerous horses dispossed of.
The duty you owe depends on the status of the person. There are three types of status commonly recognized, "trespasser", "licensee", and "invitee". Of those, the trespasser is usually owed the lowest duty of care. Traditionally, this just meant you had to refrain from harming the trespasser. So don't shoot them! So normally, I would say that the sign would probably be enough. However, there are two exceptions that require a higher duty of care owed to the trespasser. Unfortunately, you might be construed to fit both of them. The first is that the trespassers are frequent and you know about them. You then have a duty to warn them of potential dangers. The second is the "attractive nuisance doctrine". When children are involved, courts aren't so ready to send them home empty handed and may look to additional factors to determine special treatment is warranted.
Your sign says "Do not feed the horses", but does it really warn of the danger? The interpretation might be arguable, and keep in mind if it is, your not going to be the one making the final decision on what it actually means. Maybe you should have signs that say "No Trespassing" and "Danger: Horses on Premises" or something of that sort. Something that arguable warns of the danger to the trespasser from feeding the horses, not the danger to the horses from the trespasser feeding them. Second, have you taken any affirmative steps to deter trespassing? I notice zoo's usually have two fences, or a fence and a steep drop off, seperating visitors from animals. My guess is they have a reason for that. As it now stands, it could be argued that the fence was there to keep the horses in, not people out. Or that's at least how the poor injured plaintiff saw it. He didn't know that horses were dangerous. He thought they were gentle herbivores. Now, if you had two fences providing some seperation, it would place a lot higher burden on any would-be plaintiff to prove that he didn't know he wasn't supposed to stay away from the horses and that his actions were reasonable. This would likely increase his culpability, which might give you a better chance of getting off the hook.
Anyway, keep in mind I am not a lawyer (yet) and am not certified to practice law in Michigan. These are just my opinions, and my opinions only. Hopefully, the issue will never come up. But when in doubt, my theory is CYA.
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
RE: Would I be Liable (need some advice please)
What ever you do, don't put up any sign that states the horse is dangerous, like beware of horse sign. If you do, you have no grounds in a law suit. By putting up a sign like that, you are admitting to have knowledge of the danger the horse posses, there for it is your responsibility to keep the danger away from the public. I use to have a pitbull and my father inlaw, who is a judge, told me to take down the beware of dog sign. Id suggest no trespassing sings. That way you are simply stating that you do not want people in your pin. The idea of a buffer zone is a good idea. I don't know your state law, but I believe in Texas the owner is responsible for the security of your own property/livestock. I know of a couple of cases in Lubbock where kids were mauled by Pits that were keep in pins. The dog owners were sued because the kids had a way to get into the pins. Same thing with swimming pools or trampolines. Similar law suit went down where a kid got in a neighbors back yard and drown in a pool. I believe the pool owners got in trouble for not making the pool un accessible. This was back in the 80s, so I don't know if laws have changed.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
The dog owners were sued because the kids had a way to get into the pins. Same thing with swimming pools or trampolines. Similar law suit went down where a kid got in a neighbors back yard and drown in a pool. I believe the pool owners got in trouble for not making the pool un accessible. This was back in the 80s, so I don't know if laws have changed.
Since children were involved, my guess was they fell under the protection of the attractive nuisance doctrine. If you haven't made some sort of good faith effort to keep children out, you can have real problems on your hands.
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
Anyway, keep in mind I am not a lawyer (yet) and am not certified to practice law in Michigan. These are just my opinions, and my opinions only. Hopefully, the issue will never come up. But when in doubt, my theory is CYA.
damn, that's a pretty top notch application of torts to the question at hand. you graduate yet? when you taking the bar?
NT really gives a fine summary. The two fences idea is a practical solution that should give you plenty of protection. Likewise, Data's suggestion that you touch base with your insurer is also sage advice.
you can never prevent yourself from getting sued. you can, however, minimize your liability exposure.
Would I be Liable (need some advice please)
