phill4paul
09-26-2013, 07:14 AM
SMFH. Is there anything that the government does not feel a need to codify? A horse is a horse of course of course.
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Court-to-decide-whether-horses-are-vicious-4837408.php
http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/23/74/03/5226721/3/628x471.jpg
The owner of a horse farm on Wheelers Farms Road in Milford said he will be in Hartford on Tuesday when the state Supreme Court hears arguments about whether his horses -- and all horses in Connecticut -- should be classified as a "naturally vicious species."
The court case dates to 2006, when one of Timothy Astriab's horses at his Glendale Farms operation bit a toddler on the cheek. Astriab says he is not sure which of his half-dozen horses bit the child.
"The horse is still here," Astriab said Monday afternoon at the farm. "The parents couldn't identify which horse did it."
As Astriab describes it, the incident happened when a father, visiting the farm to buy plants, held his 1½-year-old son up to the horse, which was on the other side of a fence. The boy, at the urging of his parents, might have been attempting to feed the animal some grass, Astriab suggested.
"I wasn't here at the time," said Astriab, but the signs are clearly visible on his property: "Do not feed or pet the horses."
When the boy tried to pet the horse, according to court papers, the animal stuck its neck out from behind a fence and bit the child on his right cheek, "removing a large chunk of it."
Astriab said he posted the warning signs before the boy was bitten. But he said none of his horses could be considered vicious, adding that a ruling by the state Supreme Court that all horses are vicious "would open up a whole new ball game" of increased insurance costs for horse owners.
"We would be the only state in the nation that would define horses as vicious," Astriab said, noting that horses have been working alongside humans for more than 5,000 years.
Horse owners and farmers have indicated they plan to mobilize Tuesday to get the state Supreme Court to overrule a lower court ruling that defined National Velvet, Flicka, Trigger and their ilk as vicious creatures.
The Connecticut Farm Bureau and Connecticut Horse Council filed a friend of the court brief saying that under common law, viciousness generally is judged individually, according to a horse's age, breed and gender -- not as an entire species.
Fred Mastele, acting president of the state's horse council, said his organization is encouraging horse owners to attend Tuesday's hearing and support the Astriab family.
"In our opinion, horses are not vicious animals," Mastele said. "They are certainly not attack animals."
If the state Supreme Court rules horses are a "naturally vicious species," the precedent-setting classification would make owning horses uninsurable and jeopardize the state's sizable horse industry, farmers and horse owners maintain.
These equine advocates, who cite 2005 statistics saying the horse industry contributes about $221 million a year to the state's economy in boarding, training, lessons and breeding businesses, want the state Supreme Court to overturn an Appellate Court decision.
Anything less would have far-reaching consequences, according to Doug Dubitsky, a lawyer who represents farmers and horse businesses.
"You could not pair children and horses, the core equestrian business nationwide that it's all about," Dubitsky said.
In February 2012, the mid-level Appellate Court overturned a lower court ruling and said that testimony by Astriab demonstrated his horse belongs to "a species naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious."
Although Astriab had no knowledge of any of his horses biting anyone before, he testified that any horse would bite if a finger was put in front of it.
In its decision, the Appellate Court ruled the injury suffered by the little boy was foreseeable and the owners of the farm had a duty to use reasonable care to restrain the animal to prevent injury.
Astriab won the initial case at a lower court in 2010, when a New Haven judge ruled the child's father, Anthony Vendrella Sr., failed to prove the owner knew of previous incidents of aggression by any of the horses at the farm.
The state Superior Court judge said Astriab testified that in 28 years, none of the horses at the farm bit or injured anyone.
"Cats have a tendency to scratch and horses have a tendency to bite, but the plaintiffs have failed to show, as they must, that the defendants were on notice that (the horse) specifically, and not horses generally, had a tendency to bite people or other horses," Judge Robin Wilson ruled.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Court-to-decide-whether-horses-are-vicious-4837408.php
http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/23/74/03/5226721/3/628x471.jpg
The owner of a horse farm on Wheelers Farms Road in Milford said he will be in Hartford on Tuesday when the state Supreme Court hears arguments about whether his horses -- and all horses in Connecticut -- should be classified as a "naturally vicious species."
The court case dates to 2006, when one of Timothy Astriab's horses at his Glendale Farms operation bit a toddler on the cheek. Astriab says he is not sure which of his half-dozen horses bit the child.
"The horse is still here," Astriab said Monday afternoon at the farm. "The parents couldn't identify which horse did it."
As Astriab describes it, the incident happened when a father, visiting the farm to buy plants, held his 1½-year-old son up to the horse, which was on the other side of a fence. The boy, at the urging of his parents, might have been attempting to feed the animal some grass, Astriab suggested.
"I wasn't here at the time," said Astriab, but the signs are clearly visible on his property: "Do not feed or pet the horses."
When the boy tried to pet the horse, according to court papers, the animal stuck its neck out from behind a fence and bit the child on his right cheek, "removing a large chunk of it."
Astriab said he posted the warning signs before the boy was bitten. But he said none of his horses could be considered vicious, adding that a ruling by the state Supreme Court that all horses are vicious "would open up a whole new ball game" of increased insurance costs for horse owners.
"We would be the only state in the nation that would define horses as vicious," Astriab said, noting that horses have been working alongside humans for more than 5,000 years.
Horse owners and farmers have indicated they plan to mobilize Tuesday to get the state Supreme Court to overrule a lower court ruling that defined National Velvet, Flicka, Trigger and their ilk as vicious creatures.
The Connecticut Farm Bureau and Connecticut Horse Council filed a friend of the court brief saying that under common law, viciousness generally is judged individually, according to a horse's age, breed and gender -- not as an entire species.
Fred Mastele, acting president of the state's horse council, said his organization is encouraging horse owners to attend Tuesday's hearing and support the Astriab family.
"In our opinion, horses are not vicious animals," Mastele said. "They are certainly not attack animals."
If the state Supreme Court rules horses are a "naturally vicious species," the precedent-setting classification would make owning horses uninsurable and jeopardize the state's sizable horse industry, farmers and horse owners maintain.
These equine advocates, who cite 2005 statistics saying the horse industry contributes about $221 million a year to the state's economy in boarding, training, lessons and breeding businesses, want the state Supreme Court to overturn an Appellate Court decision.
Anything less would have far-reaching consequences, according to Doug Dubitsky, a lawyer who represents farmers and horse businesses.
"You could not pair children and horses, the core equestrian business nationwide that it's all about," Dubitsky said.
In February 2012, the mid-level Appellate Court overturned a lower court ruling and said that testimony by Astriab demonstrated his horse belongs to "a species naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious."
Although Astriab had no knowledge of any of his horses biting anyone before, he testified that any horse would bite if a finger was put in front of it.
In its decision, the Appellate Court ruled the injury suffered by the little boy was foreseeable and the owners of the farm had a duty to use reasonable care to restrain the animal to prevent injury.
Astriab won the initial case at a lower court in 2010, when a New Haven judge ruled the child's father, Anthony Vendrella Sr., failed to prove the owner knew of previous incidents of aggression by any of the horses at the farm.
The state Superior Court judge said Astriab testified that in 28 years, none of the horses at the farm bit or injured anyone.
"Cats have a tendency to scratch and horses have a tendency to bite, but the plaintiffs have failed to show, as they must, that the defendants were on notice that (the horse) specifically, and not horses generally, had a tendency to bite people or other horses," Judge Robin Wilson ruled.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.