morning regressions may please the court to decide whether the waialae bill will be acting wise the court must define the relationship between the plaintiff and the horse act require that a plaintiff be a participant in gauged in equine activity there's three components to that you've got to be a participant you've got to be engaged you've got to be involved in  when the horse that injured her again was brought to the arena by a third party and there's no evidence that she even knew gay was in her proximity any came to her she had absolutely no control over any whatsoever and the horse considered by the fifth district in two thousand and five in the smith case the second district in two thousand and three by the bush case and the first district considered twice in one thousand nine hundred in the car zero and less mint case b the smith  car cases are the two that we've highlighted that we think are the most instructive and both of these cases show that for a plaintiff to be engaged in an equine activity she has to exert some level of control over the animal that per it's simply not sufficient that she engaged in the activity involving a horse if that's the case you have a very broad that it would be very would be very simple to draft the act and it would he would have sweeping scope and remember this is a case or an act th different from the facts that are at issue in this case ramona didn't have control over any aspect of the horse that hit her or that the character and probably didn't even know that it was in the in the room and i'll give you another example of his district appellate court in the smith case trail you had a rider on a horse who's involved in a horseback riding activity in control of their horse no question in both of those cases that they're involved in one case use of the rider was passing the horses for a group ride to secure the arena if you want to refer to it that way can she put a chain and a padlock on the door or maybe is it reasonable i don't think so and i don't know and i think it presumes that she has some reason to expect that that horse is going to be put in there in the reasons why she wasn't engaged in boarding horses or by extension or by association one is that it wasn't a horse born in the activity that gave rise to her injuries it was the intent to exhibit and sell and prepare this y we contend that they're separate that he can the testimony on that is conflicting we took the deposition of more very i believe she testified at one point the deposition that she was an employee at another time she testified she wasn't there was a break she'd a chance to talk to her attorney between the that testimony if if anything i think her i think she i think her testimony on that is easy beaching so i don't think they don't go ahead  as whether or not my client had some some level of control over that horse and she had not she had absolutely no control over the animal that injured her and her sections in the act of hell courts have spoken to this in fact the smith court said section ten of the term equine activities are and if you refer to the statute you will quickly discover that those terms are used as part of their own definitions sections ten eight ten see in ten g as well as section fifteen if it the same conclusion that the fifth district the second district in the first of all reached in that is that the that this judge is very difficult to interpret the way that is internally consistent and the definitions are circular and if that's the case then i think you look at what those those courts have done and they have consistently found that there's got to be some connection between the horse injury and some level of control and again it comes back to being a passenger in a carriage or being kicked b passing horse that you're not in control of you don't have some level of control over the wars and this case plaintiff didn't have any control over dean and he came to her and kicked her out and you know the danger was in the arena if there isn't some