Case Name: Lucius FORSYTH v. JEFFERSON DOWNS, INC.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1962-09-17
Citations: 152 So. 2d 369
Docket Number: No. 521
Parties: Lucius FORSYTH v. JEFFERSON DOWNS, INC.
Judges: Before MILLER, VIDRINE and CUT-RER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 152
Pages: 369–377

Head Matter:
Lucius FORSYTH v. JEFFERSON DOWNS, INC.
No. 521.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.
Sept. 17, 1962.
On Rehearing April 1, 1963.
Rehearing Denied May 6, 1963.
Certiorari Refused June 28, 1963.
Lemle & Kelleher and H. M. Hunley, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
F. Irvin Dymond, Robert S. Link, Jr., and Donald S. Klein, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MILLER, VIDRINE and CUT-RER, JJ.

Opinion:
JOE R. VIDRINE, Judge.
This is a suit by Lucius Forsyth, the owner of a race horse, "Buster Jim Boy", for damages occasioned by the horse's death. On September 14, 1959 this race horse was training on the Jefferson Downs Race Track when upon reaching a spot where a section of the inner railing had been removed, and had not been replaced, the horse swerved into the opening and disemboweled himself on the iron post.
In the trial on the merits in the court below, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed.
Plaintiff-appellee filed suit for damages against Jefferson Downs, Inc. in the amount of Thirty-five Thousand ($35,000.00) Dollars for the loss of this horse. The trial court awarded judgment for the plaintiff-appellee in the amount of Seven Thousand Five Hundred ($7,500.00) Dollars, plus legal interest and costs. The trial court found that the death of the horse was caused by the negligence of the defendant-appellant.
Jefferson Downs, Inc. operates a race track in Jefferson Parish to race thoroughbred race horses. The race track has as many as nine hundred (900) horses stabled there for the mutual benefit of the track owner and owners of the horses. The horse-owner has the right to certain stables, which he pays for at the rate of .50¡é a day, per horse, and thereby has the right to exercise and/or train his horse prior to the racing season. It appears in this case that the plaintiff had, at the time of this accident, nine (9) horses in the stables at Jefferson Downs. The record revéals that repairs and construction was going on prior to September 14, 1959, the day the accident occurred. The appellant foresaw the possibility of some accident occurring while this construction was going on, because of the heavy equipment laid out on the track, and called in several trainers, who handle the horses for the owners, and had them sign an instrument which purports to hold harmless the track owner for any accident which might have occurred during said construction period. The trainer of the appel-lee herein, I. J. Surgi, signed this agreement to the effect that they were training their horses at their own risk and further agreed that the horse would not be exercised after the hour of 8:00 A.M., during the period of construction.
On September 14th at about 9:30 A.M. the plaintiff's horse was exercising, which means running on the track, and saw an open gap in the inner rail and swerved into this gap, hitting himself on the post, which resulted in his death.
The appellant contends that the lower court erred on several grounds. First, that the trainer of the plaintiff who had full control of the horse and thereby stood in the shoes of the owner, assumed the risk voluntarily in training this horse during this construction period. And also that the trainer had complete authority to sign the written agreement to which we alluded above and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover under this agreement. The third assigned error was that the plaintiff's horse was not to run at Jefferson Downs, and therefore, only those taking part in the races were permitted to train. Hence, plaintiff was a mere licensee on the track and took the premises as he found them. It is argued plaintiff's horse was entitled to only care from wanton or wilful injuries. Fourth, that the plaintiff's trainer and the exercise boy were guilty of contributory negligence and therefore bars the plaintiff from recovery. Fifth, that the award of $7,500.00 is excessive and should be reduced to not more than $2,000.00, in the event this court should find that the appellee is entitled to recover anything.
The trial court held that the accident occurred after construction had been completed, stating:
"The death of the horse was not occasioned by the repairing of the track, but as a result of negligence outside of the repairs."
The record amply supports this finding.
The argument that appellee was a mere licensee on the track is untenable. The record reveals that the appellee paid the track to keep his horses and stables for the privilege of exercising and training his horses. It was for their mutual advantage. The fact that this one particular horse was not scheduled to run at Jefferson Downs is unimportant. The important thing is that the appellee who had nine (9) horses at the stables at Jefferson Downs was paying for this particular horse as well as the other horses and therefore, the appellant owed him the duty that a business invitee is entitled to, that is to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Alexander v. General Accident F. & L. Assur. Corp., La. App., 98 So.2d 730.
The argument that the plaintiff's trainer and the exercise boy were contributorily negligent in running the horses too close to the rail is likewise untenable. The record reveals that it is the custom and the habit of race horses to run alongside the inside rail and never, except on rare occasions, does it happen that the horse will be exercised alongside the outside rail. Therefore, the exercise boy and the trainer, who had no knowledge of the gap, were not contributorily negligent.
The trial court resolved these facts in favor of the appellee. We find that the record amply supports its findings and no reversible error was committed by the trial court.
QUANTUM
The next question that comes up is the amount of the award which was made by the lower court. The trial court suggested in its judgment that it was extremely difficult for it to arrive at a fair value of this horse. The trial court bases its $7,500.00 award primarily on the fact that the evidence reveals that the horse had very good blood lines and also on the fact that a brother of this same horse was sold for $20,000.-00. The appellant argues that since the ap-pellee had entered this horse in several claiming races for $2,000.00, that this horse should not be valued any higher than that. It was shown that unlike other things of value, a race horse might be worth $2,000.00 one day and the next day $20,000.00, and likewise he might be worth $25,000.00 today and tomorrow he might be worth $200.00, depending on what happens to the horse. The record reveals that while this horse had been unsuccessful in several races, he did win the last race and the evidence also reveals that this was a very young horse and he was apparently just beginning to run to win.
We agree with the trial court that it is extremely difficult to arrive at a value for this horse. However, because of the fact that this horse had good blood lines; that its brother had been sold for $20,000.00; that it had won its last race, and was a young horse, just beginning to run to win, the award of $7,500.00 is not excessive.
For reasons above assigned, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Appellant to pay all costs.
Affirmed.