Court Finds Bradley, Churchill Not Liable for Pony Bite

The Kentucky Supreme Court decided an appeal in favor of a former Kentucky trainer and Churchill Downs after they were sued by a woman bitten by a pony in a barn on the Churchill Downs backstretch.

On the day of the 2018 Kentucky Derby (G1), Joi Denise Roby was invited to then-trainer Buff Bradley's barn by one of Bradley's owners. Bradley is a respected Breeders' Cup-winning trainer who retired from that profession in 2021 and now works for Keeneland as associate of sales development.

It was undisputed that Bradley’s stable pony, Henry, was in his stall when he "lifted up his head, lunged toward her, and bit her" as Roby was walking through the barn petting and feeding peppermints to horses. According to Roby's brief, the bite resulted in surgery and permanent disfigurement.

From the beginning, the case has hinged on two statutes: the Kentucky Farm Animals Activity Act, which provides liability protection for those engaged in farm animal activities; and an exemption to the Kentucky FAAA withholding its protection to sponsors, professionals, persons, or participants engaged in horse racing activities.

Jefferson Circuit Court in Louisville, Ky., dismissed Roby's lawsuit for damages, siding with Bradley and Churchill Downs as a matter of law.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, finding that Churchill Downs and Bradley were not protected by the Kentucky FAAA because live racing was occurring. and that Roby was injured after being bitten by the pony, and pony was used to escort racehorses to and from the track. (The pony was not fulfilling this escorting task at the time of the bite.) The court held Roby should have been granted a jury trial based on ordinary negligence principles.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by recognizing the Kentucky legislature's policy of preserving and promoting a Kentucky tradition of activities with farm animals and the safety of its participants.

That policy says, "persons do not have a duty to eliminate risks inherent in farm animal activities which are beyond their immediate control if those risks are or should be reasonably obvious, expected or necessary to participants engaged in farm animal activities" so long as they "reasonably warn of the inherent risks of the farm animal activities."

It is undisputed that Roby was, in the opinion's words, "familiar with and comfortable around horses" and that Churchill Downs had a warning sign prominently posted where Roby entered the stable area. So the primary question was whether Henry was engaged in farm animal or horse racing activities.

"The line between when one is engaged in farm animal activities and horse racing activities presents a fact-intensive question. .... Fortunately, the case before us presents a clear-cut instance where an animal was engaged only in farm animal activities despite the occurrence of racing at the same venue," Chief Justice Laurance VanMeter wrote for a unanimous court June 13.

“As relates to Henry the horse, neither Bradley nor Churchill Downs were engaged in horse racing activities at the time Roby was injured. Bradley owned the horse that bit Roby and used the horse to escort racehorses to and from (the) track. But at the time Henry bit Roby, the horse was not being used to escort a racehorse to the track ...” VanMeter wrote. “Churchill Downs was engaged in live horse racing on that day. However, Churchill Downs also boards hundreds of horses. ...  At the time of Roby’s injuries, Churchill Downs was also engaged in the farm animal activity of boarding a farm animal.

“In sum, horse racing activities were occurring at Churchill Downs during the Kentucky Derby, but not when Roby was bitten by the horse,” the opinion concluded.