O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
The General Assembly recognizes that persons who participate in equine activities or llama activities may incur injuries as a result of the risks involved in such activities. The General Assembly also finds that the state and its citizens derive numerous economic and personal benefits from such activities. The General Assembly finds, determines, and declares that this chapter is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. It is, therefore, the intent of the General Assembly to encourage equine activities and llama activities by limiting the civil liability of those involved in such activities.
History
(Code 1981, § 4-12-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 680, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 335, § 1.)
Annotations
Law reviews. - For annual survey of tort law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 363 (2005). JUDICIAL DECISIONS Activity within scope of act. - Rider’s injuries resulted from the ‘‘inherent risks of equine activities,’’ as provided in O.C.G.A. § 4-12-2(7) and, thus, were in the scope of the Injuries from Equine or Llama Activities Act as the evidence showed that the rider was injured when the rider was tacking up and another horse became startled and bucked and thrashed about, causing the rail to which
the horses were tied to separate from the posts and fall on the rider’s foot. Mays v. Valley View Ranch, Inc., 317 Ga. App. 143, 730 S.E.2d 592 (2012), cert. denied, No. S12C1980, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 980 (Ga. 2012). Cited in Muller v. English, 221 Ga. App. 672, 472 S.E.2d 448 (1996); Burns v. Leap, 285 Ga. App. 307, 645 S.E.2d 751 (2007).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case:
Holcomb v. Long, 765 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
Holcomb v. Long, 765 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 6× “Indeed, the Act’s preamble (OCGA § 4-12-1) explicitly provides: 15 The General Assembly recognizes that persons who participate in equine activities .”
Harrison v. Mcafee Et Al., 788 S.E.2d 872 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “at 518-19 (1) (examining OCGA § 4-12-1). Unlike captions, codified preambles are part of the act and appropriate to read in pari materia.”
Young v. Brandt, 485 S.E.2d 519 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 8× “Appellants now contend the trial court erred by denying their motion for a directed verdict because any negligence on their part was not the proximate cause of Brandt's injuries, Brandt assumed the risk of injury, and recovery is barred by the Injuries From Equine Activities…”
Muller v. English, 472 S.E.2d 448 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 6× “This is a case of first impression construing the Injuries From Equine Activities Act, OCGA § 4-12-1 et seq., which provides immunity from liability for certain equine and llama activities.”
Taylor v. Howren, 606 S.E.2d 74 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 6× “OCGA § 4-12-1 states: The General Assembly recognizes that persons who participate in equine activities .”
Adams v. Hare, 536 S.E.2d 284 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Adams appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Hare based on her immunity under the Injuries From Equine Activities Act (“Equine Activities Act”), OCGA § 4-12-1 et seq., enacted in 1991. For reasons that follow, we affirm.”
Wiederkehr v. Brent, 548 S.E.2d 402 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “The state court found Brent and Sweatman to be immune from liability under the Injuries From Equine 2 Activities Act, OCGA § 4-12-1 et seq., under the category “other persons”; the court did not find them “equine activity sponsors” 3 or “equine professionals.”
Gadd v. Warwick, 792 S.E.2d 773 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “Joseph Gadd appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Farrell Warwick in this case involving immunity pro-videdby Georgia’s Injuries From Equine or Llama Activities Act (“the Equine Act”), OCGA § 4-12-1 etseq. Gadd asserts that genuine issues of material fact…”
Fahey v. Kolcun Tree Care, LLC (S.D. Ga. 2022).
· cites it 28× “issue Motion, arguing that Plaintiff cannot recover pursuant to Georgia’s Injuries from Equine, Livestock, or Llama Activities Act, O.C.G.A. § 4-12-1 et seq (at times, the “Act”).”
Sammie Mays v. Valley View Ranch, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 6× “1 OCGA § 4-12-1 et seq. On July 3, 2008, Evangeline Mays was preparing to go on a trail ride with her fellow campers and camp counselors.”
Arian Chamea Berrian v. Max Grin, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “515, 518-519 (1) ( 765 SE2d 687 ) (2014) (affording the statutory text its plain and ordinary meaning in interpreting Georgia’s Injuries from Equine or Llama Activities Act, OCGA § 4-12-1 et seq., and the limitation of civil liability contained therein).”
— 4-12-1(12) — 1 case
Fahey v. Kolcun Tree Care, LLC (S.D. Ga. 2022).
“issue Motion, arguing that Plaintiff cannot recover pursuant to Georgia’s Injuries from Equine, Livestock, or Llama Activities Act, O.C.G.A. § 4-12-1 et seq (at times, the “Act”).”
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.