773.03
Limitation on liability for equine activity; exceptions.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
773.03 Limitation on liability for equine activity; exceptions.—
(1) This section applies to the horseracing industry as defined in chapter 550.
(2) Nothing in s. 773.02 shall prevent or limit the liability of an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person if the equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or person:
(a) Provided the equipment or tack, and knew or should have known that the equipment or tack was faulty, and it was so faulty as to be totally or partially responsible for the injury;
(b) Provided the equine and failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, or to determine the ability of the participant to safely manage the particular equine based on the participant’s representation of his or her ability;
(c) Owns, leases, rents, has authorized use of, or is otherwise in lawful possession and control of the land or facilities upon which the participant was injured, and the injury was due totally or in part, to a dangerous latent condition which was known to the equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or person and failed to post warning signs;
(d) Commits an act or omission that a reasonably prudent person would not have done or omitted under the same or similar circumstances or that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, which act or omission was a proximate cause of the injury; or
(e) Intentionally injures the participant.
History.—s. 90, ch. 93-169; s. 1183, ch. 97-102; s. 30, ch. 2000-354.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 2000–2016 · leading case: McNichol v. South Florida Trotting Center, Inc.
McNichol v. South Florida Trotting Center, Inc. (2010)
“Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in ignoring the negligence exception provided in section 773.03, Florida Statutes, which raises issues of fact.”
McGraw v. R and R Investments, Ltd. (2004)
“R & R responds, arguing that because the only exceptions to the broad grant of immunity given equine activity sponsors from liability for injuries suffered by participants while engaging in inherent risks of equine activities are found solely in section 773.03, Florida Statutes…”
Clyncke v. Waneka (2007)
“[1] These jurisdictions are Florida (Fla.Stat. § 773.03(2)(b) (2006)), Minnesota (Minn.”
Heggs v. State (2000)
“051) to reflect the changes in the theft statute; and section 13 amends the accessory after the fact statute (section 773.03) by establishing new penalty degrees of the offense.”
Raveson v. Walt Disney World Co. (2001)
“Nothing appears in Chapter 773 or its history that would restrict an equine professional from obtaining a release and indemnity agreement in order to eliminate liability that would survive the limitations of Chapter 773.”
Germer v. Churchill Downs Management, Etc. (2016)
“3 If, as here, the Act’s immunity provisions apply to exculpate an equine activity sponsor, a claimant is saddled with the burden of establishing an applicable exception to exculpation under section 773.03(2). Germer makes the alternate argument that a factual dispute exists as…”
Germer v. Churchill Downs Management, Etc. (2016)
“If, as here, the Act’s immunity provisions apply to exculpate an equine activity sponsor, a claimant is saddled with the burden of establishing an applicable exception to exculpation under section 773.03(2). Germer makes *725 the alternate argument that a factual dispute exists…”
— 773.03(2) — 2 cases
Germer v. Churchill Downs Management, Etc. (2016)
“3 If, as here, the Act’s immunity provisions apply to exculpate an equine activity sponsor, a claimant is saddled with the burden of establishing an applicable exception to exculpation under section 773.03(2). Germer makes the alternate argument that a factual dispute exists as…”
Germer v. Churchill Downs Management, Etc. (2016)
“If, as here, the Act’s immunity provisions apply to exculpate an equine activity sponsor, a claimant is saddled with the burden of establishing an applicable exception to exculpation under section 773.03(2). Germer makes *725 the alternate argument that a factual dispute exists…”
— 773.03(2)(a) — 2 cases
Germer v. Churchill Downs Management, Etc. (2016)
“3 If, as here, the Act’s immunity provisions apply to exculpate an equine activity sponsor, a claimant is saddled with the burden of establishing an applicable exception to exculpation under section 773.03(2). Germer makes the alternate argument that a factual dispute exists as…”
Germer v. Churchill Downs Management, Etc. (2016)
“If, as here, the Act’s immunity provisions apply to exculpate an equine activity sponsor, a claimant is saddled with the burden of establishing an applicable exception to exculpation under section 773.03(2). Germer makes *725 the alternate argument that a factual dispute exists…”
— 773.03(2)(b) — 2 cases
Clyncke v. Waneka (2007)
“[1] These jurisdictions are Florida (Fla.Stat. § 773.03(2)(b) (2006)), Minnesota (Minn.”
Raveson v. Walt Disney World Co. (2001)
“Nothing appears in Chapter 773 or its history that would restrict an equine professional from obtaining a release and indemnity agreement in order to eliminate liability that would survive the limitations of Chapter 773.”
— 773.03(2)(d) — 2 cases
McNichol v. South Florida Trotting Center, Inc. (2010)
“Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in ignoring the negligence exception provided in section 773.03, Florida Statutes, which raises issues of fact.”
McGraw v. R and R Investments, Ltd. (2004)
“R & R responds, arguing that because the only exceptions to the broad grant of immunity given equine activity sponsors from liability for injuries suffered by participants while engaging in inherent risks of equine activities are found solely in section 773.03, Florida Statutes…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.