O.C.G.A. § 4-12-3 (2019)
Immunity from liability for injury or death; exceptions
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, a llama activity sponsor, a llama professional, or any other person, which shall include a corporation or partnership, shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities or from the inherent risks of llama activities and, except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, no participant or participant’s representative shall make any claim against, maintain an action against, or recover from an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, a llama activity sponsor, a llama professional, or any other person for injury, loss, damage, or death of the participant resulting from any of the inherent risks of equine activities or resulting from any of the inherent risks of llama activities. (b) Nothing in subsection (a) of this Code section shall prevent or limit the liability of an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, a llama activity sponsor, a llama professional, or any other person if the equine activity sponsor, equine professional, llama activity sponsor, llama professional, or person: (1)(A) Provided the equipment or tack, and knew or should have known that the equipment or tack was faulty, and such equipment or tack was faulty to the extent that it did cause the injury. (B) Provided the animal and failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity or llama activity and to safely manage the particular animal based on the participant’s representations of his or her ability; (2) Owns, leases, rents, or otherwise is in lawful possession and control of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a dangerous latent condition which was known or should have been known to the equine activity sponsor, equine professional, llama activity sponsor, llama professional, or person and for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted; (3) Commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, and that act or omission caused the injury; or
Page: 155
Date: 06/14/13 Time: 10:58:25
GA RV 13 RV 4(T4-6) - EP
(4) Intentionally injures the participant. (c) Nothing in subsection (a) of this Code section shall prevent or limit the liability of an equine activity sponsor, equine professional, llama activity sponsor, or llama professional under liability provisions as set forth in the products liability laws.
History
(Code 1981, § 4-12-3, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 680, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 335, § 3.)
Annotations
Law reviews. - For annual survey of tort law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 363 (2005). JUDICIAL DECISIONS Exception to immunity pertaining to possession and control of the land and facilities applies only to conditions for which warning signs have not been posted. Muller v. English, 221 Ga. App. 672, 472 S.E.2d 448 (1996). No defective construction. - Rider’s injuries, sustained when a portion of a hitching rail to which a horse was tied became detached and fell on the rider after the horse became spooked, 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. While the rider’s mother attempted to show that the hitching rail was defectively constructed, there was insufficient evidence to show that the hitching rail was defectively constructed based on industry practices. 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). Exception to immunity pertaining to willful or wanton disregard for safety did not apply when plaintiff was kicked by the sponsor’s horse during a fox hunt since it was shown that the horse was not so unusually prone to kick that continuing to ride the horse was evidence of willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others. Muller v. English, 221 Ga. App. 672, 472 S.E.2d 448 (1996). Failure to adhere to a traditional fox hunting custom such as tying a red ribbon
in the tail of an inexperienced or irritable horse did not rise to the level of willful or wanton disregard. Muller v. English, 221 Ga. App. 672, 472 S.E.2d 448 (1996). Exception to immunity for cases in which the sponsor provided the animal did not apply when the plaintiff was riding the plaintiff ’s own mount. Muller v. English, 221 Ga. App. 672, 472 S.E.2d 448 (1996). Waiver of review of immunity claim. - In a rider’s personal injury action against the owners of a horse, the owners waived review of the owner’s claim that O.C.G.A. C. 12, T. 4 provided the owners’ immunity from suit as a matter of law, when, in the owners’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the owners’ acquiesced in a trial court ruling that the question of whether warning signs were posted, an element of a claim of immunity, was for the jury. Young v. Brandt, 225 Ga. App. 889, 485 S.E.2d 519 (1997). Immunity as ‘‘any other person.’’ - In an action arising from an incident in which a horse reared and fell back on the plaintiff after plaintiff mounted the horse, the defendants were entitled to immunity as ‘‘any other person’’ where the plaintiff neither alleged nor tendered evidence showing the defendants, as equine activity sponsors or as equine professionals, had to have warning signs to trigger immunity. Wiederkehr v. Brent, 248 Ga. App. 645, 548 S.E.2d 402 (2001).
Page: 156
Date: 06/14/13 Time: 10:58:25
GA RV 13 RV 4(T4-6) - EP