ja_mageia

Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review of USEF Victory in Antitrust Case

The United States Supreme Court, in a decision dated February 20, 2007, denied a petition for certiorari filed by the losing plaintiffs in JES Properties, Inc. v. USA Equestrian Trust et al. The Supreme Court's decision left standing a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirming the dismissal of an antitrust challenge to the USEF's Mileage Rule.

Appellate Court Upholds New York Racing & Wagering Board Definition of "Administer" in Connection with a Medication

The Board suspended the petitioner trainer's suspension after a finding that he had administered mepivicaine to a horse within seven days of a race. The rule defines administer as to "cause the introduction of a substance in the body of a horse" which the Board interprets, pursuant to its trainer responsibility rule, as including not only deliberate introduction of a substance, but also introduction by unintentional or reckless acts, or by no acts at all. Petitioner asserted that the word be limited to read an element of deliberate intent into the regulations, such that a drug cannot be said to be administered to a horse unless someone willfully and consciously acts to introduce it into the horses’ system. The court rejected the petitioner's definition. It said that the trainer responsibility rule is not absolute, but only gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that places strict responsibility upon the trainer to ensure that a horse in his/her care and custody does not receive any prohibited substance. The trainer can rebut the presumption with substantial evidence proving that he/she is in fact not responsible for the drug's presence in the horse's body. The petitioner attempted to meet his burden with expert testimony that the horse was inadvertently contaminated by mepivicaine from an unknown source. The court held that the Board acted within its discretion in disregarding petitioner's theory since mere speculation will not rebut the presumption. Pletcher v. New York State Racing and Wagering Board, 2006 WL 3513107 (3rd Dept, Dec. 7, 2006).

Us Appellate Court Upholds Texas Absolute Insurer Rule

Texas is one of several states that has an absolute trainer responsibility rule. The plaintiff trainer argues that the rule violates due process because it creates an irrebuttable presumption that the trainer of the horse administered the substance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the plaintiff's position. The court held that the absolute insurer rule makes the trainer of a horse the absolute insurer that the horse is free from all prohibited substances, and that no presumption of trainer fault is created when the presence of a prohibited substance is found. The court said that the rule does not assign fault, but instead requires the trainer to bear the responsibility of the horses’ condition, and that due process does not require proof of guilty knowledge before punishment may be imposed. The court found the rule to be a reasonable and valid exercise of the state's power to protect horses, the integrity of racing, and the interests of the betting public. The court therefore agreed with the majority of jurisdictions in which the courts have in the past upheld similar rules then in effect (Michigan, California, Ohio, Florida, West Virginia, Arixona, Louisiana, New Jersey and Massachusetts), and disagreed with the two jurisdictions (Illinois and Maryland) that have held such a rule to be unconstitutional. Hudson v. Texas Racing Commission, 455 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2006).

New York Appellate Court Affirms Finding of No Liability for Equestrian Accident

The lower court properly dismissed plaintiff's claims for common-law negligence and negligent supervision, since the record did not raise an issue of fact to support the claim that the horse had dangerous or unpredictable proclivities, and there was no credible evidence that the rider had been unable to control the horse. Both wit-nesses described the horse as very steady and passive and sweet and quiet. The court went on to state that even without evidence of unpredictable propensities, plaintiffs were able to pursue the case on a theory of negligence (citing Restatement of Torts [Second] 518). However, plaintiffs failed to identify a distinct act that defendants should have done or refrained from doing under the circumstances to protect the infant plaintiff, or some distinct, enhanced duty that was violated. All of the alleged flaws in the trainer's instruction were relevant only if the intention was for the plaintiff to learn to manage a faster, more unruly horse, and in any event, only if they were the substantial or proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. The trainer was attentive, and the accident occurred in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it. Fintzi v. Riverdale Riding Corporation d/b/a Riverdale Equestrian Centre, 2006 WL 2563798 (1st Dept., Sept. 7, 2006).