The General Assembly recognizes that persons who participate in equine activities, livestock activities, or llama 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 such activities. The General Assembly finds, determines, and declares that this chapter is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. It is, therefore, the intent of the General Assembly to encourage equine activities, livestock activities, and llama activities by limiting the civil liability of those involved in such activities.
(Code 1981, §4-12-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 680, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 335, § 1; Ga. L. 2017, p. 134, § 1/HB 50.)
The 2017 amendment, effective July 1, 2017, inserted ", livestock activities," in the first and fourth sentences of this Code section. See Editor's notes for applicability.
Editor's notes.- Ga. L. 2017, p. 134, § 2/HB 50, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment of this Code section by that Act shall not apply to any cause of action arising prior to July 1, 2017.
Law reviews.- For annual survey of tort law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 363 (2005).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Activity within scope of act.
- Rider's injuries resulted from the "inherent risks of equine activities," as provided in O.C.G.A. § 4-12-2(7) and, thus, were in the scope of the Injuries from Equine or Llama Activities Act as the evidence showed that the rider was injured when the rider was tacking up and another horse became startled and bucked and thrashed about, causing the rail to which the horses were tied to separate from the posts and fall on the rider's foot. Mays v. Valley View Ranch, Inc., 317 Ga. App. 143, 730 S.E.2d 592 (2012), cert. denied, No. S12C1980, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 980 (Ga. 2012).
Horse owner entitled to immunity.
- In a suit brought by a rider who was seriously injured after falling from a horse, the trial court properly granted the owner summary judgment because the owner was entitled to civil immunity under the Equine Activities Act, O.C.G.A. § 4-12-1 et seq., since none of the exceptions to immunity outlined in the statute applied and the owner's failure to retighten the girth did not constitute faulty tack under the statute. Holcomb v. Long, 329 Ga. App. 515, 765 S.E.2d 687 (2014).
"Inherent risks of equine activities".
- In a case involving immunity provided by Georgia's Injuries From Equine or Llama Activities Act, O.C.G.A. § 4-12-1 et seq., the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant, the individual who provided the horses, because the plaintiff camp counselor's injuries resulted from the inherent risks of equine activities; the defendant provided the horse to the camp, not the plaintiff, and the supervisor of the camp's equestrian program, not the defendant, assigned the plaintiff to ride the particular horse on the day the plaintiff was injured; and the defendant did not willfully or wantonly disregard the plaintiff's safety as there was no evidence of previous issues or incidents with the horse, and the plaintiff had undisputed riding experience. Gadd v. Warwick, 339 Ga. App. 802, 792 S.E.2d 773 (2016).
Cited in Muller v. English, 221 Ga. App. 672, 472 S.E.2d 448 (1996); Burns v. Leap, 285 Ga. App. 307, 645 S.E.2d 751 (2007).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
- Validity, construction, and application of statutory exemptions from liability for persons injured by equine or equestrian activities, 79 A.L.R.6th 487.