Landes v. H.E. Farms, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 January 1991 |
| Citation | 564 N.Y.S.2d 151,169 A.D.2d 446 |
| Parties | Deborah LANDES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents, v. H.E. FARMS, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSS, ROSENBERGER, KASSAL and WALLACH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered October 10, 1989, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as to defendant Harry De Leyer but denied it as to corporate defendant H.E. Farms, Inc. ("Farms") unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting summary judgment in favor of Farms against plaintiffs, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant H.E. Farms, Inc., dismissing and complaint as againt it.
Order of the same court, entered on or about March 28, 1990, which denied plaintiffs' renewal motion addressed to the prior order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff Deborah Landes and her husband commenced this negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when she fell off one of defendants' horses at the latter's livery stable in Suffolk County. After issue was joined, defendant De Leyer successfully moved for summary judgment on his own behalf, but the court denied relief as to the corporate defendant, Farms. We conclude that summary judgment should have also been granted to Farms, and that plaintiffs' renewal motion was properly denied.
A horse is a "domestic animal" as a matter of law (Agriculture and Markets Law § 108[7]. The owner of a domestic animal is not liable for injury caused by such an animal unless he knows or should have known of its vicious propensities (Muller v. McKesson, 73 N.Y. 195). In his affidavit in support of the motion for summary judgment, defendant De Leyer established that he did not know of any vicious tendencies on the horse's part from the time of the horse's purchase until the date of the incident. To his knowledge, the horse had never thrown a rider. When he first assisted plaintiff in mounting the horse, he noted that she rode the animal several times around the ring without any difficulty. De Leyer also contradicted plaintiff's assertion that she was a mere novice or beginner-level rider, because she had made mention to him of her considerable riding experience as a child, a teenager, and up to two years before the incident. In light of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forrest v. Gilley
...knowledge of horse's propensity to buck, and owed a duty to give bucked-off plaintiff notice of that propensity); Landes v. H.E. Farms, Inc. (1991), A.D.2d 564 N.Y.S.2d 151 (plaintiff could not show defendant had knowledge horse would throw rider); Appel v. Charles Heinsohn, Inc. (1983), 91......
-
Ansick v. Hillenbrand Industries, Inc.
...v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind.1991). 4 For similar treatment of this issue in other jurisdictions, see, Landes v. H.E. Farms, Inc., 169 A.D.2d 446, 447, 564 N.Y.S.2d 151 (1991) ("owner of a domestic animal is not liable for injury caused by such an animal unless he knows or should have know......
-
Wardrop v. Koerner
...injury caused by the animal unless he or she knew or should have known of its vicious or violent propensities (see, Landes v. H.E. Farms, 169 A.D.2d 446, 564 N.Y.S.2d 151; Appel v. Charles Heinsohn Inc., 91 A.D.2d 1029, 458 N.Y.S.2d 619, affd 59 N.Y.2d 741, 463 N.Y.S.2d 441, 450 N.E.2d 247;......
-
Cipriano by Cipriano v. Hank
...that the dog's alleged lack of vicious propensities would negate his potential liability to plaintiffs (see, Landes v. H.E. Farms, 169 A.D.2d 446, 564 N.Y.S.2d 151). However, a justifiable excuse is also a requisite element for vacatur, and Hank's failure to offer an excuse for a delay of s......