*1
Jr., for relator.
David Comstock
Slipski
E.
Ronald
Marro, for
Lynn
respondent.
J. Juhasz
John
Appellant.
Appellee,
Landfair,
Smith,
Landfair,
as Smith v.
nity from case, In we are asked to from the inherent risk of activities. this resulting “equine injured person when therefore determine claim for is barred the statute. activity participant” damages whose Appeals that the District Court of erred Because we conclude Ninth on summary interpretation the trial court’s based its overturning judgment judgment appeals. we of the court reverse “spectator,” word Background I. *2 personal-injury This action from a 2007 arises incident that occurred at
{¶ 3} (“CJS”), Wayne County. CJS Standardbred Stables located in following deposition testimony facts are taken from trial presented to the court. Landfair, Appellant, years, Donald licensed livestock dealer for 40 {¶ 4} horses, boarded two of his Patty (“Patty”) Green Acre and Green Acre Annie (“Annie”) at for in breaking training CJS harness Annie racing. young was horse, led, areas, trained to be but the extent of in training her other such as trailer, loaded being and unloaded from a was in dispute. Smith, owner, Roshel Appellee, daughter at CJS’s worked CJS
{¶ 5} 2008, from assisting 2000 to in the care and management of horses. As groomer and barn manager, opportunity she had the to work with Annie and knew that horses are unpredictable inherently dangerous. 28, On March picked Landfair Annie and up Patty from CJS for off-site
{¶ 6} blacksmithing. trailer, He loaded the horses into the took them to the black- smith, CJS, and reloaded them for return to by himself and without incident. Meanwhile, had stopped by Smith CJS to visit her father. As she was standing by the barn doorway her father watching track, exercise another horse on the Landfair unloaded from Patty the trailer. Smith said “hi” to him when he put Patty into the barn and him then saw return to the trailer to unload Annie. As Annie, he was preparing unload an Amish wagon with two teams of horses trailer, passed the spooking According the horse. to Smith: First, I heard commotion and I glanced over and Annie pushed had Mr. Landfair out of the trailer and Mr. Landfair was on the ground, and proceeded trailer, then Annie jump out of the and she was starting to him step on and he still had line, ahold of the [horse’s and that’s lead] when I ran after and I don’t very remember much that. after assistance, When she tried to togo Landfair’s Smith was kicked by head the horse and facial injuries. received and head She filed a personal- injury complaint in the County Summit Court of Common Pleas alleging Landfair had been negligent attempting to handle untrained and unbroken horse known to be skittish in failing to seek in unloading assistance the horse from its trailer. Landfair filed a motion summary for judgment, arguing he was immune from liability pursuant to R.C. 2305.321. After a hearing, the trial court with agreed Smith that she was not a in an
participant event virtue of assisting the control of the horse 2305.321(A)(3)(e). pursuant to R.C. But the court concluded that R.C. i.e., a spectator, she was to bar Smith’s claim because 2305.321(A)(3)(g)applied Thus, Smith at and “noticed” that event. Annie present she was injured. Summary judgment she was “equine activity participant” when was in favor Landfair. granted was reversed the appealed, Appeals and the Ninth District Court Smith proceed trial further to the court for
summary judgment, remanding
case
II. 2305.321, statute, In equine-activities-immunity R.C. enacting Ohio’s Assembly that
General declared equine activity participant, professional, an equine activity sponsor, farrier, liable in a tort or veterinarian, damages or other is not allegedly civil for harm an equine activity participant other action that results an inherent risk of equine activity sustains from during activity. concluding assignment 1. first of error claimed that the trial court erred in R.C. Smith’s argued abrogated assignment rescue The second of error 2305.321 the common-law doctrine. assignment error the trial court Landfair’s conduct wanton. The fourth contended was error, finding “controlling” assignment fifth which was Annie. The erred that Landfair failing grant for leave to amend her claimed that the trial court erred Smith’s motion error, misconduct, complaint plead the court of as harmless wanton overruled trial because the court had considered issue. 92 “ 2305.321(B)(1). mule, zebra, horse, ‘Equine’ pony, donkey, hinny, means 2305.321(A)(1). hybrid, alpaca.”
zebra outset, At the we note that the dissent would hold that R.C. 2305.321 Constitution, I, First, violates the Ohio Article Section 16. neither has party argument raised constitutional issue briefs or oral before the court. Declar- unconstitutional, a statute sua ing sponte, parties without notice would be unprecedented. issue, Even when parties one has raised constitutional we do not absolutely necessary.
decide on that basis unless and until
State ex rel. Clarke v.
Cook,
465,
(1921),
103
paragraph
Ohio St.
Statutory language (¶ Assembly The General acknowledged the inherent risks that arise when 14} people interact with horses and other animals in the category of equines.
Inherent an equine activity risk of a danger means or condition that is an of an integral part equine activity, to, including, any but not limited following:
(a) The of an propensity equine to behave in in ways may result death, injury, or loss to persons on or around the equine; (b) The unpredictability sounds, of an reaction equine’s sudden movement, objects, unfamiliar persons, or other animals. 2305.321(A)(7). 2305.321(A)(2)(a) “Equine activity” is broadly defined R.C.
(i) show, fair, parade or competition, performance, An equine to, not limited including, an but equine equine discipline, involves an show, jumping, three-day jumper grand prix dressage, hunter rodeo, team event, cutting, reining, training, driving, pulling, combined perform- or western steeplechasing, English penning, racing, polo, barrel games, western riding, nonendurance trail riding, ance endurance or riding; and recreational hunting, packing,
(ii) instructing, testing, or evaluat- training, teaching, An or rider equine to, clinic, seminar, symposium; or but not limited ing activity, including, (iii) to, limited normal including, of an but not boarding equine, The daily equine; care of an
(iv) of an transporting equine; or trailering, loading, unloading, The (v) owned another evaluating equine or riding, inspecting, The received of value for anything of whether the owner has person, regardless prospective purchaser or equine permitting the use of the is it; ride, inspect, or evaluate (vi) drive, activity ride, hunt, cattle or other trip, branding, roundup, A equine activity sponsored involves an formal, informal, planned, of whether the sponsor, regardless impromptu;
(vii) removing equine, of horseshoes on placing replacing The equine; of the hooves of an equine, trimming of horseshoes from an or the (viii) veterinary provision of or assistance provision an equine; treatment or maintenance care for (ix) conducting or assistance conducting procedures artificial insemina- equine by to breed an means of procedures necessary tion or otherwise. shows, with a every activity almost associated language As this broad 16}
{¶ similarly used broad activity.”2 Assembly is an The General “equine horse activity participant”: language defining “equine *5 any of the person engages means a who
“Equine activity participant” activities, an or a of whether the is amateur following regardless 2305.321(A)(2)(b). racing 2. excluded. R.C. Horse expressly 94 particular in the paid participate or whether a fee is
professional activity:
(a) an driving, controlling any equine, manner Riding, training, unmounted; whether the is mounted (b) an upon equine; a Being passenger
(c) an equine; medical treatment to Providing (d) assisting conducting procedures Conducting procedures [sic ] means of artificial insemination or necessary equine by to breed otherwise;
(e) activity a who is in an described division Assisting person engaged (d) section; (A)(3)(a),(b), (c), or of this
(f) activity; Sponsoring equine activity. at an
(g) Being spectator added.) 2305.321(A)(3). (Emphasis R.C. interpretation
Judicial The word is not defined in the It is undisputed statute. was involved in an when he was equine activity loading horses; what disputed equine activity participant his is whether Smith was was, being spectator injured. virtue of when she was If she 2305.321(A)(3)(g) and her claim is barred. applies, In interpreting statutory language, paramount court’s concern is S.R., (1992). 590, 594,
legislative intent. State v.
63 Ohio St.3d
95 and plain the no distinction between court found face. The the plaintiff the plaintiff and concluded “bystander” and ordinary an to-wit: spectator, a being virtue of activity participant “was an Nonetheless, made clear the court at *7. watcher, Id. observer, bystander.” a person in which in all circumstances not approving it was it. injured by a horse and is to see happens dictionary considered several case, Ninth District the In the instant “spectator”:
definitions of
and
attends
is
who
common,
spectator
“[o]ne
ordinary meaning
Dictio-
Heritage
American
show,
the like.” The
event or
sports
views
(1981)
at *5
1241.
also Allison
See
Language
nary
English
“ ‘one
including
of spectator,
definitions
dictionary
common
(examining
“
”
*
* *
exhibition!;’ and
a‘]
beholds;
witnessing
one
on or
that looks
”).3
participating’
who watched without
person
¶
915, 14.
468,
{¶ because “spectator,” was not a and concluded question Dictionary New International to Webster’s Third attributed these definitions 3. The Allison court (1983). (1986) Dictionary, Edition 840 House Concise and The Random issue, at “watching” equine activity namely, she was not ¶ Instead, him Id. at “only peripheral Annie. she saw out her vision.” 16. *7 positions Parties’ unduly that of the argues Landfair the court restricted broad {¶ 23} 2305.321(A)(2) (3). He that the trial court language of R.C. contends that a at the of correctly spectator by “being present unloading found Smith was ‘noticing’ transpired leading up injury.” Annie and the events that to her that at the emphasizes by voluntarily positioning Landfair herself stable area horses, remaining before he arrived and at the stable area as he unloaded his watch, see, in placed position equine Smith herself to or interact with an activity subjected immunity finally and so herself to the statute. Landfair that his argues interpretation Assembly’s is consistent with the General the purpose enacting statute, which is to address “the inherent risks that arise when large, unpredict- able animals like horses are close contact with people.” appeals’ interpretation Smith maintains the court of was correct in {¶ 24} the definition of to narrowing “spectator” require intent to see or watch a Otherwise, specific equine activity. immunity the all statute covers victims of the equine activity, rendering meaningless inherent risk of the limitation of immunity activity to an “equine participant.” argues spectator is someone intentionally placed who has himself or herself for the purpose seeing event. Because she did not herself at the place doorway intending barn to watch horses, his she was not a spectator equine activity. Smith also asserts that court give the should this narrower to the interpretation “spectator” word to avoid more tort claims than eliminating the General Assem- bly intended. “spectator”
Definition of parties have offered us two competing interpretations. On the one hand, a spectator merely bystander who happens vicinity to be the of an hand, equine activity. On the other a spectator purposely is someone who goes view, a place equine place, where activities take to watch. In our intending the first is too broad and the is too narrow. second First, a mere Being bystander passerby is not the charac- enough.
teristics of types “equine activity the other listed in participants” 2305.321(A)(3)(a) (f) that a imply more active role was intended. All other the categories of participants riding, controlling, treating, breeding describe animals. These activities all involve with an purposeful, equine, active contact interpret “spectator” extending bystander inject and to to a would disharmony context, 1.42, among the subsections. Words in a statute must be read in placed “spectator” in which the term that the context we do not believe incongruous reading. such an permits statute, that a person we conclude Moreover, given purpose 27}
{¶ “inherent exposure in a position himself or herself deliberately put must not be need apply. can to horses before proximity risk” of at a show sense of activity the classic equine there to watch an that draws the exposure in an area of purposeful placement It is the event. eliminated, or the seeing completely cannot be immunity. But the element Thus, who we hold one meaning. of all would be drained “spectator” word activities are in a location where himself or herself purposely places an “equine and hence who sees such an occurring and 2305.321(A)(3)(g). of R.C. within activity participant” Here, situations envisioned facts one of the encompass activity,” which injured due to an “inherent risk Smith was legislature. *8 in may injury. in that result ways a to propensity includes the of horse behave 2305.321(A)(7)(a). words, unpredictable. Although In horses are other R.C. in a work, voluntarily herself day placed at to she was not the stable Smith unloading attempted saw the equine taking place, location where activities were trailer, activity. risk of that injured due to the inherent of Annie from the and was a chance. She was at horse Landfair’s horse was not due to proximity Her to father, owner, place near the where standing the and was stable to see her stable trailer, occurring. a was of a horse from “equine activity,” unloading 2305.321(A)(2)(a)(iv). Thus, claim is barred. personal-injury Smith’s in reverse the with Ninth District this case. We disagree We
{¶ 29} a spectator that Smith was not appeals holding of the court of on its judgment unload Annie at the time watching she was not Landfair a matter of law because said, necessary to watch is not to be injured. As we have intent she was above, broadly in written statute at issue this case is “spectator.” As noted and it is the people, that arise when horses are near to address the inherent risks in a of known to that risk voluntary position exposure injured person’s placement spectator at a not render someone Merely glancing horse would key. enough. activities is not vicinity equine in the activity. Simply being equine are equine aware that activities Rather, voluntarily, must be there occurring. definition, material issues of hold that there are no In our we applying near She stood equine-activity participant. whether Smith was an regarding
fact horse, equine him to watch exercise door at her father’s stable the barn to watch intending not Although specifically in of itself. she was trailer, the horse she knew that he unload Annie from his on unloading was based her happening. perception it Whether and saw not She had voluntari- or mere vision is determinative. viewing peripheral direct taking place, activities were thus in a location where ly placed herself unpredictable that arises from a horse’s danger to the subjecting potential herself nature. note, however, every person spectator that not is a important It is purposefulness place is a measure of needed present.
when a horse is There mail at a farm delivering And so a mail carrier vicinity. oneself the horse’s must to a injured runaway spectator. go place horse is not One who to be a occurring being activities are before deemed where 2305.321(A)(3)(g). within the of R.C. meaning
III. Conclusion 2305.321(B)(1). to R.C. pursuant Landfair is entitled Nevertheless, appeals. issues remain to be resolved the court of assignment any immunity liability maintained in her second of error that from 2305.321(B)(1) conferred was forfeited because Landfair’s conduct was 2305.321(B)(2)(d). assignment wanton under R.C. She asserted her fourth in finding “controlling” error that the trial court erred that Landfair was Annie 2305.321(A)(3)(A). within And first assignment of R.C. Smith’s trial concluding error claimed court erred R.C. 2305.321 abro- gated ruling assignment the common-law rescue doctrine. Due to its on the third error, the court of held these of error to be moot. We assignments Appeals therefore remand the case to the Ninth District Court of to consider the remaining assignments error.
Judgment reversed *9 and cause remanded. Lundberg O’Connor, C.J., and and McGee Stratton, O’Donnell, Cupp, Brown, JJ., concur. J., dissents.
Pfeifer, J., dissenting.
Pfeifer, Constitution, I, Article “A1 shall The Ohio Section 16 states: courts be land, him in open, every person, injury goods, person, for done his law, reputation, remedy by justice shall have due course of and shall have stated, without court “This delay.” administered denial This has section right Ohio Constitution to seek redress in Ohio’s courts when one is protects Co., injured by another.” Brennaman v. R.M.I. 460, 466, (1994). N.E.2d 425 to an ‘inherent injured was due states “Smith majority opinion The ” * * inherent of an injured was not because
risk of she was way help her to someone risk; she went out of injured she was because time, would be Next she injured process. obligated help not to case of this get trampled. upshot watch a person well served to sit back and involving a horse situation encourage people encountering dangerous is to situation, course, if the horse watch, even attempt help. rather than Of her, recovery no and kicked there would be person watching over to the walked spectator. would be a because Assembly the General scope The broad of R.C. 2305.321 enacted I, Article Section 16 toothless effectively this court renders interpreted by
and as It hard to envision broader injuries. with respect equine-related sovereign immunity benighted than that 2305.321. Even the conferred immunity to horse provides 2305.321 blanket significant exceptions. has Constitution, I, and, so, Article Section 16. contravenes the Ohio doing owners I appeals. I of the court of dissent. adopt reasoning would the sound Firm, Ltd., Reinhardt, appellee. Law K. for Reinhardt and John L.L.P., Calderone, Hanna, Powell, A. and John R. Campbell & Kenneth for Chlysta, appellant. Law, L.L.C., Paul affirmance for amicus
Giorgianni Giorgianni, urging for curiae Ohio Association Justice. Green, L.P.A., for Lawyers, urging
Green & Green and Thomas M. reversal amicus curiae Horseman’s Ohio Council. Appellee. Appellant, Gardner, Ohio, State *10 Gardner,
[Cite as State
99,