[AnAmericanMother]

IF the horse had a vicious propensity (as it appeared to from Xena's first post), and IF the horse was allowed to continue at the barn, and IF the owners didn't disclose the propensity, and IF the horse injured another person in a similar manner . . . yeah, I'd take the case. So would any attorney.

I haven't done much plaintiff's work, but that's open and shut, even with the equine immunity statute.

Big caveat: that's a lot of "IF"s, but if that's the way it shook out it would be a good case. Good in the sense of having some value for an injured plaintiff.

[HairOfTheDog]

Every kid in the barn knew to stay away from that horse. I don't think there's any failure to disclose.