A horse owner’s liability for injuries caused by a rearing steed is at issue in a case the Michigan Supreme Court is scheduled to hear today as justices wrap up the final scheduled oral argument session of the 2009-2010 term.
In Beattie v Mickalich, the plaintiff claims the defendant failed to secure his horse properly, and that his alleged negligence led to her injuries.
But the defendant — who claims the plaintiff wanted to ride the horse over his objections —invoked the state’s Equine Activity Liability Act.
That act protects “an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or another person” from liability “for an injury to or the death of a participant or property damage resulting from an inherent risk of an equine activity.”
The statute does not prohibit a claim if the defendant “[p]rovides an equine and fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity,” or if the defendant “[c]ommits a negligent act or omission that constitutes a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage.”
Although the plaintiff contends that she produced sufficient evidence to support her claim under these two statutory exceptions, both the trial court and the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the act barred her claim, with the appellate court stating that the “plaintiff was engaged in inherently risky equine activity.”
Another case appearing before the high court is People v Waterstone.
At issue in this matter is whether the office of the Attorney General can serve as special prosecutor in a case where the defendants include a former judge, who is charged with knowingly allowing perjured testimony to be presented in a criminal case in which she was presiding.
The Attorney General’s office previously represented the judge when the defendant in that criminal case brought a civil lawsuit against her and others in federal court.
The judge argues that the Attorney General has a conflict of interest because of the earlier representation and so is disqualified from prosecuting her.
The remaining five cases involve premises liability, procedural and criminal law issues.
All seven cases are being heard as oral arguments on application.
The Supreme Court orders oral arguments on application in cases where the Court is deciding whether to grant leave to appeal or take some other action, such as sending the case back to a lower court for further proceedings.
In an oral argument on application, the appellant and appellee each get 15 minutes for argument, rather than the 30 minutes per side in cases where the Court has already granted leave.
Court will be held on May 11 in the Supreme Court’s courtroom on the sixth floor of the Michigan Hall of Justice in Lansing.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
