Modifies a provision relating to liability for equine or livestock activities
HB565 repeals and replaces Missouri’s existing statute on liability for equine and livestock activities. The bill defines key terms such as equine activity, livestock activity, sponsors, professionals, participants, and the “inherent risks” associated with working around horses and livestock. It then provides that, as a general rule, sponsors, professionals, owners, facilities, auction markets, and their employees are not liable for injuries or death to participants that result from those inherent risks.
The bill also lists specific exceptions where liability can still attach, including faulty equipment or tack known or that should have been known to be defective, failure to make reasonable efforts to assess a participant’s ability to safely engage with the animal, dangerous latent conditions on land or facilities without conspicuous warning signs, willful or wanton disregard for safety, intentional injury, and other liability established elsewhere in law. It excludes horse racing regulated under separate statutes and does not alter employer-employee liability governed by workers’ compensation law. The bill also requires warning signs and written contracts to include a statutory notice about the liability limitation.
HB565 would update Missouri’s recreational-agriculture liability framework by expressly limiting civil claims arising from ordinary risks in equine and livestock activities while preserving several negligence and misconduct exceptions. It affects a broad set of parties, including riding stables, trainers, boarding facilities, livestock auction markets, sponsors, instructors, owners, and employees, and it requires posted warnings and contract language for covered activities. The bill would not apply to the horse racing industry or to employer-employee relationships governed by chapter 287.
The available voting history suggests the bill had substantial support in the House, passing third reading with 97 yeas and 51 nays. That margin indicates the measure was generally favored, likely because it provides liability protection for agricultural and equine businesses and clarifies risk allocation for participants. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote suggests the bill was not unanimous and drew meaningful opposition.
The main point of contention is the scope of liability protection versus participant safety and access to legal remedies. Supporters likely view the bill as necessary to protect equine and livestock operators from lawsuits based on inherent animal-related risks, while opponents may be concerned that the statute narrows recovery for injured participants and could reduce incentives to maintain safe facilities, equipment, and supervision. The exceptions in subsection 4 are especially important because they preserve claims for defective tack, known dangerous conditions, inadequate assessment of participant ability, and intentional or reckless conduct, reflecting an attempt to balance industry protection with accountability.