A recent ruling in Pointe Coupee Parish serves as a vital reminder for injury victims: not all animal attacks are treated equally under Louisiana law. While a dog owner faces strict liability, a horse owner’s responsibility hinges on the standard of negligence.
Unfortunate instances can occur when a wild animal is involved. The First Circuit Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana ruled that defendants Mr. and Mrs. Rivett, who were sued in addition to their insurer, are not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff when he was riding their horse. The plaintiff sued under an ordinary negligence claim under Article 2321 of the Civil Code of Louisiana (amended in 1996), which renders the owner of an animal liable for damage caused by the animal. For the owners of all animals except dogs, an ordinary negligence standard applies. For dogs, a strict liability standard was retained.
In order to recover under Article 2321, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the defendant was required to adhere to a specific standard of care (the duty factor); (2) the defendant did not adhere to the appropriate standard (the breach of duty factor); (3) the defendant’s failure to adhere to the standard in fact caused the plaintiff to be injured (the cause-in-fact factor); (4) the injuries of the plaintiff were legally caused by defendant’s failure to adhere to the standard (the degree of liability or sphere of protection factor); and (5) the plaintiff’s actual damages (the damages factor). If the plaintiff fails to show any of these elements, there is no liability. The First Circuit referred to this analysis as the duty/risk analysis.
On appeal, the plaintiff asserted that the trial court committed five legal errors. The First Circuit found that the trial court did err by not instructing the jury with the correct standard with which to evaluate the defendants’ conduct and therefore set aside the jury verdict finding for the defendants. The court reviewed the case de novo, without giving any weight to the factual findings of the incorrectly instructed jury as it usually would, and still found that the plaintiff had not been able to establish that the defendants were negligent for the injuries caused by the startled horse.
In this case, the defendants own four horses and keep them for recreational purposes. They had owned Breeze, the horse at issue, for approximately one year and had not experienced nor knew of any previous occasions when Breeze was uncontrollable. The evidence at trial was contradictory as to what the plaintiff told Mrs. Rivett about his previous riding experience and exactly when the horse began to run, against the plaintiff’s wishes. However, there was uncontradicted testimony by Mrs. Rivett that Breeze was the calmest of the four horses they owned and had never been uncontrollable or hard to handle. Mrs. Rivett rode Breeze frequently and never saw any indication that Breeze had a bad disposition or a mean spirit. In addition, an equine behavior expert examined Breeze and found nothing that would lead him to conclude that Breeze was uncontrollable or skittish.
Why the Court Ruled for the Horse Owners
In this case, the court emphasized that horses do not fall under the strict liability mandate of La. C.C. Art. 2321 that applies to dogs. To win a horse injury case in Pointe Coupee or anywhere in Louisiana, a plaintiff must prove the owner knew of a ‘vicious propensity’ or failed to exercise reasonable care. Because the horse in this case had no history of aggressive behavior, the owners were not held liable. This highlights the high burden of proof in livestock cases compared to dog bites
Since the appellate court found that the plaintiff could not show that the Rivetts were negligent, it dismissed the plaintiff’s case and charged him with the costs of the appeal.
For a deeper dive into the ‘Knowledge’ requirement for livestock, see our Louisiana Horse and Livestock Injury Guide. If this had been a dog bite instead of a horse kick, the outcome likely would have been different due to Louisiana’s Strict Liability Dog Laws. Also learn how third parties may be liable even if they didn’t own the dog who bite or injured someone: Suing Landlords, Festivals, and Employers for Animal Attacks in Louisiana.
The ‘Vicious Propensity’ Rule: What Victims Must Prove
In the Pointe Coupee case, the court’s decision turned on the fact that the horse had no history of dangerous behavior. In Louisiana, this is known as having a “vicious propensity.” To win a case against a horse or livestock owner, a plaintiff typically must provide evidence of “prior notice.” This could include:
- Documentation of previous biting or kicking incidents.
- Testimony from neighbors or previous riders about the animal’s temperament.
- Evidence that the owner used specific “danger” signs or warnings that they later ignored.
Without proof that the owner knew the horse was a “kicker” or “biter,” the law assumes the animal is a standard risk of farm life, and the owner is protected from liability.
Guest vs. Business Invitee: Does Your Status Matter?
Under Louisiana premises liability law, your reason for being on the property can change the owner’s “duty of care.”
If you are a social guest (a “licensee”), the owner generally only has a duty to warn you of “latent” (hidden) dangers they actually know about. However, if you are a paying customer at a stable or a “business invitee,” the owner has a higher duty to inspect the premises and ensure the animals provided are safe for your level of experience. This distinction is often the difference between a dismissed case and a successful settlement.
Whether you are a guest or a customer, the standard of care remains rooted in negligence. See how this compares to the Equine Immunity Statute for even more specific protections.
If you have been injured by an animal other than a dog, you must be able to show that the owner failed to comport with a duty of care. If you have been injured by a dog, the owner is strictly liable for the damage, and the standard the plaintiff must prove is not as high. Speaking with an attorney about this burden of proof, as well as financial compensation for harm suffered, is the best course of action when trying to remedy such an incident.