Dangerous Horse Rules - PNER/AERC (Long)

[Ramey Peticolas-Stroud <ramey@wvi.com>]

Hi Kris,

We came home after the ride yesterday (two hour drive) and now I have
some time to respond to a few Ridecamp questions that have been piling
up.

The Pacific Northwest Endurance Rides, Inc. (PNER) Board of Directors
discussed the subject of dangerous horses at rides during their last
Board meeting.  The focus of the discussion was related to your
questions: "Can they actually exclude horses that kick?"  and "How do
you determine if a horse is a kicker?"  

After the discussion the Board asked if I would write an article on the
subject of dangerous horses.  I agreed as long as no particular horses
or riders were to be the subject of this work.   The following are
excepts from this article:

The PNER bylaws allow membership to be revoked for: "Threatening to or
committing any unreasonable act in connection with PNER activities which
is likely to or actually results in injury or damage to any other
person...."  For PNER any "unreasonable act" is the operative phrase. 
Reasonableness is a grading standard reflective of community values. 
Generally one might ask "what would a reasonably experienced rider
and/or horse owner do any similar conditions?"   If the horse and/or
rider fall far below this standand, then it is possible under PNER rules
for this horse and/or rider to be disciplined.  Rather than initiate a
formal proceeding, PNER ride managers usually send a letter of concern
to the rider/owner of the subject horse asking them not to participate
in their events until the problem is solved.  This is a courteous way of
preventing someone from hauling all the way to a ride and then being
refused entry.  Ride managers also offer try to help and encouragement
as well. 

But what if the owner resigns from PNER or is not a member?  American
Endurance Ride Conference, Inc. (AERC) rules require their sanctioned
events to be open to all.  Ride entry may not be refused just because a
ride manager doesn't like someone or for some other trivial reason.  But
it is clear that ride entry may be refused for "cause" under AERC Rule
4.  Subjecting riders, horses and crews to the dangers of a known
kicker, for example, and/or a rider who won't control a kicking horse is
arguably just cause for denial of entry.  In this case, whether or not a
horse and/or rider presents an unreasonable risk to others must be
determined on a case-by-case basis using the community values
(reasonableness) standard discussed above.

Even if the PNER bylaws and the AERC rules were silent on the dangerous
horse issue, there are still rules of contract which apply.  When one
pays a ride entry fee to a ride manager, a service contract is formed. 
The ride manager agrees to provide a trail, vets, a ride camp, toilets,
horse water, etc.  The rider agrees to pay a fee, to abide by all
applicable rules and to "reasonably participate" in event activities.

Every contract, written or verbal, has an implied provision of "good
faith and fair dealing."  A written "Liability Release" normally does
not change this implication.  Is putting a ride manager at risk of a law
suit fair dealing?  Probably not.  Especially when one considers the
provisions in most ride insurance contracts which excludes intentional
acts and gross negligence from coverage.  

Insurers might argue that letting a horse compete which has a known
history of some unreasonable and dangerous trait, and/or a rider who
does little about it, goes beyond ordinary negligence, and may even rise
to the level of a knowing, intentional act.  In either case, the insurer
may deny coverage and the ride manager, et al, would become personally
liable for damages.

Ramey