BEAUMONT – Two individuals injured in an auto accident with a horse have lost their appeal to overturn a summary judgment motion entered in favor of a horse owner they allege is responsible for the animal they struck.
Judge Leanne Johnson of the 9th District Court of Appeals at Beaumont affirmed the 136th District Court of Jefferson County’s ruling granting summary judgment to the appellee. The decision was issued on Sept. 13.
The appeals court found that appellants failed to prove that the horse they encountered on the road belonged to appellee Scott Courville. In addition, even if the horse did belong to Courville, “Neither the ownership of the animal nor the ownership of the premises creates a rebuttable presumption that the animal’s presence on the road was attributable to the negligence of the owner of the animal or the premises.
"Here, there is no evidence that Courville left any gate open or authorized anyone to leave any gate open,” the court ruled.
According to the ruling, appellants Thomas Dearbonne and Anne Harris were driving on FM 365 when they were in a collision with a horse. The appellants claim that appellee Scott Courville “owned the horse... was negligent in failing to keep his horses properly corralled, failing to maintain a sufficient fence, and in allowing his horses to roam freely upon the public roads.”
The appellants were injured in the crash.
Courville responded to the claims by filing a no-evidence motion for summary judgment. He argued that there was no proof that the horse that collided with the appellants was his. The day of the accident, Courville admits that two of his horses broke free from their pasture. However, he claims that his horses were no where near FM 365.
Courville alleged he spoke with Deputy Donald Metts, the livestock officer for the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, about his horses after the accident. He testified that Metts told him that all of his horses were uninjured and accounted for. He mentioned the car accident but said that defendant’s horses were not involved.
Metts testified that he has witnessed accidents involving automobiles and horses and believed that the horse involved in plaintiff’s car accident must have sustained severe injuries, the court stated.
On Dec. 13, 2016, the trial court issued a ruling granting Courville’s motion and dismissing the appellants’ claims with prejudice.
The appellants appealed the decision, arguing that “in the case at bar there is indisputable evidence of the wreck, and exceptionally strong circumstantial evidence pointing towards the conclusion that the horse in front of Courville’s property during a search for escaped horses known to belong to Courville – was in fact Courville’s horse.”
Courville testified that he has no idea whose horse was on FM 365 the day of appellants’ crash, the court stated.