Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (2026)
Civil liability exemption; equine activities
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
895.481(1)(b)1.1. Shows, fairs, competitions, performances or parades that involve any breeds of equines and any equine disciplines, including combined training, competitive trail riding, cutting, dressage, driving, endurance trail riding, English or western performance riding, grand prix jumping, horse racing, hunter and jumper shows, hunting, polo, pulling, rodeos, 3-day events and western games.
895.481(1)(b)4.4. Riding, inspecting or evaluating an equine belonging to another, regardless of whether the owner of the equine receives monetary or other consideration for the use of the equine or permits the riding, inspection or evaluation of the equine.
895.481(1)(b)6.6. Riding, training or driving a vehicle pulled by an equine or being a passenger on a vehicle pulled by an equine.
895.481(1)(c)(c) “Equine activity sponsor” means a person, whether operating for profit or nonprofit, who organizes or provides the facilities for an equine activity, including owners or operators of arenas, clubs, fairs, schools, stables and therapeutic riding programs.
895.481(1)(d)(d) “Equine professional” means a person engaged for compensation in the rental of equines or equine equipment or tack or in the instruction of a person in the riding or driving of an equine or in being a passenger upon an equine.
895.481(1)(e)(e) “Inherent risk of equine activities” means a danger or condition that is an integral part of equine activities, including all of the following:
895.481(1)(e)1.1. The propensity of an equine to behave in a way that may result in injury or death to a person on or near it.
895.481(1)(e)2.2. The unpredictability of an equine’s reaction to a sound, movement or unfamiliar object, person or animal.
895.481(1)(e)4.4. The potential for a person participating in an equine activity to act in a negligent manner, to fail to control the equine or to not act within his or her ability.
895.481(1)(f)(f) “Property” means real property and buildings, structures and improvements on the real property.
895.481(1)(g)(g) “Spectator” means a person who attends or watches an equine activity but does not participate in the equine activity or perform any act or omission related to the equine activity that contributes to the injury or death of a participant in the equine activity.
895.481(2)(2) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (6), a person, including an equine activity sponsor or an equine professional, is immune from civil liability for acts or omissions related to his or her participation in equine activities if a person participating in the equine activity is injured or killed as the result of an inherent risk of equine activities.
895.481(3)(3) The immunity under sub. (2) does not apply if the person seeking immunity does any of the following:
895.481(3)(a)(a) Provides equipment or tack that he or she knew or should have known was faulty and the faulty equipment or tack causes the injury or death.
895.481(3)(b)(b) Provides an equine to a person and fails to make a reasonable effort to determine the ability of the person to engage safely in an equine activity or to safely manage the particular equine provided based on the person’s representations of his or her ability.
895.481(3)(c)(c) Fails to conspicuously post warning signs of a dangerous inconspicuous condition known to him or her on the property that he or she owns, leases, rents or is otherwise in lawful control of or possession.
895.481(3m)(3m) A person whose only involvement in an equine activity is as a spectator shall not be considered to be participating in the equine activity.
895.481(4)(4) Every equine professional shall post and maintain signs in a clearly visible location on or near stables, corrals or arenas owned, operated or controlled by the equine professional. The signs shall be white with black lettering, each letter a minimum of one inch in height, and shall contain the following notice: “Notice: A person who is engaged for compensation in the rental of equines or equine equipment or tack or in the instruction of a person in the riding or driving of an equine or in being a passenger upon an equine is not liable for the injury or death of a person involved in equine activities resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities, as defined in section 895.481 (1) (e) of the Wisconsin Statutes.”
895.481(5)(5) If an equine professional uses a written contract for the rental of equines or equine equipment or tack or for the instruction of a person in the riding, driving or being a passenger upon an equine, the contract shall contain the notice set forth in sub. (4) in clearly readable bold print of not less than the same size as the print used in the remainder of the contract.
895.481(6)(6) This section does not limit the liability of a person under any applicable products liability laws.
895.481 AnnotationThe application of this section is not limited to equine professionals. The exception to immunity under sub. (3) (a) for faulty equipment did not apply when no connection between the equipment and the plaintiff’s injuries was shown. Kangas v. Perry, 2000 WI App 234, 239 Wis. 2d 392, 620 N.W.2d 429, 00-0001.
895.481 Annotation“Provides an equine” in sub. (3) (b) means to make available for use an equine that the provider either owns or controls and does not encompass an equine previously sold or given to the individual claiming damages. Barritt v. Lowe, 2003 WI App 185, 266 Wis. 2d 863, 669 N.W.2d 189, 03-0034.
895.481 AnnotationA person asserting that the person has immunity because the person was “riding,” as an “equine activity,” at the time of the injury-producing accident need not show that the person was on the back of a horse at the moment of the accident. The statute is worded in terms of immunity for acts or omissions “related to” participation in an equine activity and not only for the act of the activity itself. Hellen v. Hellen, 2013 WI App 69, 348 Wis. 2d 223, 831 N.W.2d 430, 12-1916.
895.481 AnnotationWhile it is true that a person who already owns or controls an equine can participate in an equine activity without being provided with an equine, in order for a person who does not own or control an equine to participate in an equine activity, someone must provide an equine within the meaning of sub. (3) (b). It is immaterial whether the person who allegedly provides the equine retains sole or primary control of the equine. Hellen v. Hellen, 2013 WI App 69, 348 Wis. 2d 223, 831 N.W.2d 430, 12-1916.
895.481 AnnotationThe exception under sub. (3) (b) centers on the assessment by a provider of a horse of a rider’s abilities based on the rider’s representations of his or her ability. The exception does not abrogate immunity for a provider’s negligent management of a horse, and the exception does not require an actual demonstration of riding ability or a test ride. Dilley v. Holiday Acres Properties, Inc., 905 F.3d 508 (2018).
895.481 AnnotationUnder Barritt, 2003 WI App 185, “providing an equine,” for purposes of the exception under sub. (3) (b), means that the defendant owns or controls the equine in question and makes it available for the plaintiff’s use. A riding instructor does not “provide” a horse owned by the riding student merely by exercising control over the riding lesson. Dilley v. Holiday Acres Properties, Inc., 905 F.3d 508 (2018).
895.481 AnnotationThe Exculpatory Contract and Public Policy. Anzivino. 102 MLR 747 (2019).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Hellen v. Hellen, 2013 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013).
Hellen v. Hellen, 2013 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “In this case, we are called upon to interpret and apply the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (2011-12). 1 The basic facts are that Ruth Hellen was injured as a result of contact with a horse named Whisper as Ruth held Whisper's lead rope and Ruth's daughter-in-law,…”
Mettler Ex Rel. Burnett v. Nellis, 2005 WI App 73 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “1 The Mettlers argue the circuit court erred by failing to consider their expert's affidavit, which created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 , applies. 2 We agree and reverse that portion of the judgment.”
Kangas v. Perry, 2000 WI App 234 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “The Kangases argue that the trial court erred by (1) applying the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 , 1 to the facts of this case; and (2) failing to conclude that Gilbert was vicariously liable as pari of a joint venture with Virgil Perry, the horses' owner.”
Barritt v. Lowe, 2003 WI App 185 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “1 Lowe claims the court erred when it determined that an exception to the equine activity immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 , applied to her and, therefore, she could be held liable for injuries Barbara Barritt sustained at her riding academy.”
Clyncke v. Waneka, 157 P.3d 1072 (Colo. 2007). “§ 99E-2(b)(2) (2006)), and Wisconsin (Wis.Stat. § 895.481(3)(b) (2006)).”
Smith v. Lane, 832 N.E.2d 947 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “) Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (l)(b)(6) (2004). The defendants cite Kangas, a case brought under the Wisconsin statute, in support of their position.”
Carl v. Resnick, 714 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “See also Wis. Stat. Ann. § 895.481 (5) (West 1997) (“equine activity” includes “Hiding, training or driving an equine or being a passenger on an equine”); Conn.”
Brittany Ann Jagdfeld v. Lynn Jagdfeld (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 895.481 (2023-24).2 Because the court correctly concluded that the undisputed facts entitled Lynn to the statutory immunity, we affirm.”
Geman v. McLaury, 698 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “We agree with the circuit court that McLaury and Allen are immune from liability under the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (1999-2000), [1] and we affirm.”
Smith v. Lane (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “Wisconsin's statute provides: " 'Equine activity' means any of the following: *** Riding, training[,] or driving a vehicle pulled by an equine or being a passenger on a vehicle pulled by an equine .”
Carl v. Resnick Modification of Mar. 31, 1999 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “See also Wis. Stat. Ann. § 895.481 (West 1998) ("equine activity" includes "[r]iding, training or driving an equine or being a passenger on an equine"); Conn.”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.481(1)(b) — 1 case
Geman v. McLaury, 698 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “We agree with the circuit court that McLaury and Allen are immune from liability under the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (1999-2000), [1] and we affirm.”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.481(1)(c) — 1 case
Geman v. McLaury, 698 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “We agree with the circuit court that McLaury and Allen are immune from liability under the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (1999-2000), [1] and we affirm.”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.481(1)(d) — 1 case
Geman v. McLaury, 698 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “We agree with the circuit court that McLaury and Allen are immune from liability under the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (1999-2000), [1] and we affirm.”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.481(1)(e) — 2 cases
Brittany Ann Jagdfeld v. Lynn Jagdfeld (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 895.481 (2023-24).2 Because the court correctly concluded that the undisputed facts entitled Lynn to the statutory immunity, we affirm.”
Geman v. McLaury, 698 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “We agree with the circuit court that McLaury and Allen are immune from liability under the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (1999-2000), [1] and we affirm.”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.481(2) — 3 cases
Hellen v. Hellen, 2013 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “In this case, we are called upon to interpret and apply the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (2011-12). 1 The basic facts are that Ruth Hellen was injured as a result of contact with a horse named Whisper as Ruth held Whisper's lead rope and Ruth's daughter-in-law,…”
Brittany Ann Jagdfeld v. Lynn Jagdfeld (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 895.481 (2023-24).2 Because the court correctly concluded that the undisputed facts entitled Lynn to the statutory immunity, we affirm.”
Geman v. McLaury, 698 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “We agree with the circuit court that McLaury and Allen are immune from liability under the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (1999-2000), [1] and we affirm.”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.481(3) — 2 cases
Kangas v. Perry, 2000 WI App 234 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “The Kangases argue that the trial court erred by (1) applying the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 , 1 to the facts of this case; and (2) failing to conclude that Gilbert was vicariously liable as pari of a joint venture with Virgil Perry, the horses' owner.”
Hellen v. Hellen, 2013 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “In this case, we are called upon to interpret and apply the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (2011-12). 1 The basic facts are that Ruth Hellen was injured as a result of contact with a horse named Whisper as Ruth held Whisper's lead rope and Ruth's daughter-in-law,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.481(3)(a) — 1 case
Brittany Ann Jagdfeld v. Lynn Jagdfeld (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 895.481 (2023-24).2 Because the court correctly concluded that the undisputed facts entitled Lynn to the statutory immunity, we affirm.”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.481(3)(b) — 4 cases
Clyncke v. Waneka, 157 P.3d 1072 (Colo. 2007). “§ 99E-2(b)(2) (2006)), and Wisconsin (Wis.Stat. § 895.481(3)(b) (2006)).”
Hellen v. Hellen, 2013 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “In this case, we are called upon to interpret and apply the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (2011-12). 1 The basic facts are that Ruth Hellen was injured as a result of contact with a horse named Whisper as Ruth held Whisper's lead rope and Ruth's daughter-in-law,…”
Barritt v. Lowe, 2003 WI App 185 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “1 Lowe claims the court erred when it determined that an exception to the equine activity immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 , applied to her and, therefore, she could be held liable for injuries Barbara Barritt sustained at her riding academy.”
Brittany Ann Jagdfeld v. Lynn Jagdfeld (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 895.481 (2023-24).2 Because the court correctly concluded that the undisputed facts entitled Lynn to the statutory immunity, we affirm.”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.481(4) — 1 case
Geman v. McLaury, 698 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “We agree with the circuit court that McLaury and Allen are immune from liability under the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (1999-2000), [1] and we affirm.”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.481(l)(b) — 1 case
Hellen v. Hellen, 2013 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “In this case, we are called upon to interpret and apply the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (2011-12). 1 The basic facts are that Ruth Hellen was injured as a result of contact with a horse named Whisper as Ruth held Whisper's lead rope and Ruth's daughter-in-law,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.481(l)(e) — 1 case
Hellen v. Hellen, 2013 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “In this case, we are called upon to interpret and apply the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (2011-12). 1 The basic facts are that Ruth Hellen was injured as a result of contact with a horse named Whisper as Ruth held Whisper's lead rope and Ruth's daughter-in-law,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.481(l)(g) — 1 case
Hellen v. Hellen, 2013 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “In this case, we are called upon to interpret and apply the equine immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.481 (2011-12). 1 The basic facts are that Ruth Hellen was injured as a result of contact with a horse named Whisper as Ruth held Whisper's lead rope and Ruth's daughter-in-law,…”
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.