[brief] This appeal arises from an incident in which a Standardbred stallion named Wishing Stone attacked and injured his handler during breeding operations.  On October 3, 2018, Plaintiff [...] was working at [...], a horse breeding farm located in [...].  Plaintiff was walking Wishing Stone from his stall to the breeding shed when Wishing Stone suddenly lunged at him, knocking him to the ground before biting and raking him several times.  Wishing Stone enjoyed a successful racing career in the U.S. and Europe that included winning the prestigious Kentucky Futurity at age three and the Copenhagen Cup in Denmark at age five.  He retired from racing in 2014 and immediately began to stand stud as a stallion.  Wishing Stone’s stallion career was managed pursuant to a 2014 Syndicate Agreement that authorized Defendants [...] and [...] (“[...]”) to act as Wishing Stone’s “Stallion Manager” and “Syndicate Manager,” respectively.  In addition to managing Wishing Stone’s breeding career, [...] operates a horse farm located in [...].  Between 2014 and 2018, Wishing Stone’s semen was collected at various breeding farms, all of whom attest to the fact that Wishing Stone never displayed any aggression or viciousness prior to the October 3, 2018 incident involving Plaintiff.  It is further undisputed that none of the handlers or veterinarians involved in his breeding ever told Defendants Gulotta or [...] of any aggressive incidents or concerns about Wishing Stone’s temperament.  Everyone who handled Wishing Stone as a breeding stallion – including Plaintiff’s employer, [...] – testified that he was well-behaved, if not gentle, compared to other breeding stallions.  Even Plaintiff described Wishing Stone as a “perfect horse” that never exhibited any signs of trouble prior to the attack.  In opposing summary judgment, Plaintiffs themselves conceded that Wishing Stone never injured anyone or showed vicious propensities to any handler, and that Defendants did not have notice of any past aggressive or vicious behavior directed towards any person.  Summary judgment should be affirmed because there is no evidence Defendants knew or had reason to know that Wishing Stone had some vicious or dangerous trait or propensity that made him abnormally dangerous.  Plaintiffs have presented no evidence Wishing Stone ever behaved viciously or aggressively prior to the attack.  The witnesses who observed Wishing Stone all testified that the behavior cited by Plaintiffs was not a sign of aggression, and in any event was typical of all breeding stallions.  The common law standard of strict liability for injuries caused by domestic animals retains the element of *scienter* and requires evidence of past behavior by the offending animal that provides reasonable grounds to believe that it might cause injury.  However, Plaintiffs take the novel and unprecedented position that Defendants should be held strictly liable because they should have known that all breeding stallions are capable of a sudden, unprovoked attack regardless of their past behavior.  Plaintiffs rely on a misreading of the applicable jury charge that is contrary to its common law antecedents and unsupported by any precedent in this State or any other jurisdiction.  Furthermore, adopting Plaintiffs’ theory would expose all stallion owners to absolute liability for injuries that occur during breeding operations.  This outcome runs counter to the Legislative intent behind the Equine Activities Liability Act, which grants broad immunity for injuries to persons engaged in equine activities.  **STATEMENT OF FACTS**