Laplace V.Briere
New Jersey Supreme Court Appellate Division
404 NJ Super 585,962 A.2d 1139 (2009)

Facts: Michael Laplace boarded his horses including his trained Quarter Horse named Park Me in First at Pierre Brier’s stable in New Jersey. Charlene Bridgwood also boarded her horse at the same stable. Twelve years earlier, Laplace boarded his horses at Bridgwood’s husband farm. While having the horses on the farm. Bridgwood would usually lunge including Laplace horses. In 2006, during a horse show in which Laplace and Briere took place. Bridgwood offered to help Briere shorthanded staff by taking care of lunging the horses. She was not an employee of Brier’s stable. Park Me in First collapsed with blood pumping from his nose and died during the exercise. Without performing a necropsy, the cause of death could not be determined. Brier and Bridgwood offered to pay for the necropsy; however Laplace had to give authorization before necropsy can be performed. Laplace gave his authorization after the horse’s remains has been already removed, therefore no necropsy was performed. He then filed a suit in the New Jersey state court against Briere favor. Laplace appealed.

Issue:

Was Bridgwood, not an employee of Briere, liable under the tort of conversion law for the horse’s death while exercising him, when was no proof of cause of death? Was Briere, the stable owner considered negligent in the proper care of the horse under the bailment agreement? Was Briere liable under the conversion rule?

Decision: No. The state intermediate Appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. Based on the lack of proof of negligence, Briere and Bridgwood could not be held liable on the claim for the death of Park Me First.

Reason:

The lower court entered summary judgment in favor of the stable owner and person who exercised the horse. On appeal, the Superior Court, Appellate Division, held that the person who exercised horse could not be liable under the tort of conversion as she did not exercise such control and dominion over the horse when lunging it that she seriously interfered with plaintiff’s ownership rights in the horse. Moreover, the exerciser’s conduct was done in good faith and there was no causal connection between her conduct and the destruction of the horse. On the issue of bailment, the court found that while the horse was left in a bailment arrangement with stable when the plaintiff delivered his horse, the stable, as a bailee, could not be liable under a theory of conversion. The court stated that the sole fact defendant was unable to return the horse due to its death does not mean that it was liable for the loss. Finally, with regard to negligence, the court found the proofs presented by Briere stable does not have evidence of negligence causing the death of the horse, thus rebutting the presumption of negligence. As such, the plaintiff failed to come forward with any additional evidence that established the horse was negligently exercised or that the exercise itself was a main cause of its death.