Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-20-101 (2026)
Legislative findings and intent
✓ current as of May 2026
The general assembly recognizes that persons who participate in equine 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 these activities. It is, therefore, the intent of the general assembly to encourage equine activities by limiting the civil liability of those involved in such activities.
Acts 1992, ch. 974, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: Teles v. Big Rock Stables, L.P., 419 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (E.D. Tenn. 2006).
Teles v. Big Rock Stables, L.P., 419 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (E.D. Tenn. 2006). “Defendants aver that they are exempt from liability for plaintiffs’ injuries under the Tennessee Equine Activities Act (Equine Act), T.C.A. § 44-20-101, et seq, as “equine professionals” under the Act; that plaintiff was a participant under the Act, and falling off of the horse…”
Svacha v. Waldens Creek Saddle Club, 60 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting: 1) Plaintiffs’ claims had been released with the execution of the above waiver; 2) Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by Tenn.Code Ann. § 44-20-101, the Equine Activities statute; and 3) there were no facts to support a claim…”
McGraw v. R & R Investments, Ltd., 877 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 44-20-101 (1993). If the statutes only limit civil liability, a mandatory interpretation of the notice requirement, whereby failure to provide the required warning notice disqualifies the defendant from statutory immunity, does not obstruct the enumerated…”
Kerry Jordan v. YMCA of Middle Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that they were immune from liability under the provisions of the Equine Activities Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-20-101 et seq. The trial court granted the motion.”
Kimberly J. Svacha v. Waldens Creek Saddley Club (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting: 1) Plaintiffs’ claims had been released with the execution of the above waiver; 2) Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-20-101 , the Equine Activities statute; and 3) there were no facts to support a…”
Myra Huls v. Mark Davis (6th Cir. 2020). “2 These included a claim of immunity under the Equine Activities Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 44-20-101 to -105, and an argument that, even if he owed Ms.”
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.