Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1661 (2026)
Short title.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
EQUINE ACTIVITY LIABILITY ACT
Act 351 of 1994
691.1661 Short title.
Sec. 1.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "equine activity liability act".
History: 1994, Act 351, Eff. Mar. 30, 1995
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Woodman v. Kera LLC, 785 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2010).
Woodman v. Kera LLC, 785 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2010). “[56] See also the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA), MCL 691.1661 et seq., which proscribes general claims for ordinary negligence, regardless of the injured person's age.”
Sholberg v. Truman, 852 N.W.2d 89 (Mich. 2014). “Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal with respect to an issue concerning violations of the Equine Activity Liability Act, MCL 691.1661 et seq., and defendants filed a separate application for leave to appeal on the nuisance claim.”
Amburgey v. Sauder, 605 N.W.2d 84 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “This appeal provides this Court with its first opportunity to construe the Equine Activity Liability Act (eala), MCL 691.1661 et seq:, MSA 12.418(1) et seq.”
Beattie v. MICKALICH, 784 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. 2010). “In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REMAND this case to the Lapeer Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
Kent v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc, 613 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “] 4 See also 1994 PA 351 , the Equine Activity Liability Act, MCL 691.1661 et seq.; MSA 12.418(1) et seq.”
Beattie v. Mickalich, 773 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “In this personal injury action, we must decide whether § 5(d) of the Equine Activity Liability *566 Act (EALA), MCL 691.1661 et seq., prescribes a general claim of ordinary negligence.”
Gardner v. Simon, 445 F. Supp. 2d 786 (W.D. Mich. 2006). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1661 , et seq. Specifically, Defendant relies on section 3 of the EALA which provides as follows: Except as otherwise provided in section 5,' an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or another person is not liable for an injury to or the…”
Beattie v. Mickalich, 775 N.W.2d 794 (Mich. 2009). “At oral argument, the parties shall address: (1) whether the Equine Activity Liability Act, MCL 691.1661 et seq., bars recovery for allegedly negligent acts of an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional or another person; (2) whether a plaintiff must plead in avoidance…”
Samantha Johnson v. Outback Lodge & Equestrian Ctr. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “At summary disposition, defendant argued that it was immune from liability under the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA), MCL 691.1661 et seq., and further that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of or breach of a duty owed by defendants to…”
Edwin Bates Jr v. Auto Club Grp. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “There are numerous problems with this position. First, and most problematic, there is no amended complaint—or even a proposed amended complaint—in the lower court record, which in itself belies the assertion that the trial court granted KOL’s motion to amend its complaint.”
Violet Lapeer v. Otsego Cnty. Fair Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “I respectfully disagree with the majority only insofar as the majority’s opinion suggests that plaintiff was ever both a spectator and a participant at the same point in time.”
Violet Lapeer v. Otsego Cnty. Fair Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Plaintiff alleged that her claims were not barred by Michigan’s Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA), MCL 691.1661 et seq., because she was not a participant in the horse show.”
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.