Animals

Many of Ohio’s farm markets, u-picks, farm petting zoos, and other “agritourism” operations are preparing to open for their spring and summer activities.  While these types of agritourism activities are popular, they raise unique liability concerns. That’s because there is always the risk of an injury or harm when bringing people onto the farm, whether allowing them to be near animals, riding on equipment, in crop and orchard areas, or engaging in physical activities.  Along with readying the farm for the new season, agritourism operators should also plan for the possibility of a liability incident. 

Here are five actions agritourism providers can take to manage liability risk.

1. Conduct a safety review.   Inspect your operation with visitor safety in mind.  Remember, many visitors have never been on a farm or don’t understand what might harm them on a farm. Examine all areas visitors will be in, including surrounding “off limits” areas visitors might try to access, and identify any possible safety hazards.  Pay extra attention to areas children will use. Consider these questions:
   • Are the facilities, fences, gates, steps, play areas, and other structures in good repair?
   • Are doors and gates working and latching properly?
   • Are pesticides, herbicides, or chemicals out of sight and inaccessible?   
   • Are animal enclosures sound, do any “dangerous” animals need to be fully off limits to visitors, and are there handwashing stations near animal contact areas?
   • Are there any accessible dangers that might attract children, such as ladders, equipment, lagoons, large tractor tires, and wells?
   • Are parking areas and walkways sufficiently sized and buffered from traffic?

Look for the potential dangers, then take actions such as making repairs; installing blockades, fences, locks, or other structures to keep visitors away; putting up signs and warnings; providing instructions or maps; expanding parking areas or walkways; and removing unnecessary dangers.

2. Complete our Agritourism Ready course.  Be prepared for the possibility of an emergency situation—both natural and man-made disasters can raise the need for an emergency response. How an operation responds to an emergency can reduce harm to visitors and ultimately affect the operation’s risk of liability or harm.  OSU offers a curriculum that helps agritourism operations reduce risks by developing an emergency management plan.  Access this valuable and free resource at https://u.osu.edu/agritourismready/.
3. Train employees.  A business is legally responsible for the negligence of its employees, so it’s important to reduce the risk that an employee’s actions will cause or contribute to a visitor’s harm.  Provide thorough safety training to agritourism employees.  Make sure employees know how to do the job, including activities like operating equipment, maintaining and cleaning visitor areas, handling animals, overseeing children, and responding to a safety incident.
4. Obtain agritourism insurance coverage.  Insurance is an excellent liability management tool.  But be aware that a typical farm insurance policy does not cover agritourism activities, and a separate endorsement or policy may be necessary.  Even if a farm has a separate endorsement for agritourism, it’s still important to ensure that any new agritourism activities fall under the agritourism coverage. Now is the time to schedule a visit with the insurance provider and review the insurance policy.  Don’t be secretive about what you’re doing in your operation.  Share all activities with the provider and ensure that each activity is covered by the policy.  If an activity is not covered or will require costly additional coverage, weigh the risk, costs, and benefits of continuing to offer the activity.
5. Install the Ohio agritourism immunity sign.  I’ve been surprised recently by how many operations I’ve visited that do not have an agritourism immunity sign on display. Posting the sign is a critical risk management tool.  That’s because Ohio law provides civil immunity for qualifying agritourism providers if a visitor suffers harm or injuries due to the “inherent risks” of being on a farm.  To receive the immunity, however, an agritourism provider must post the required agritourism immunity sign at the entrance to or near the agritourism activities.  The agritourism immunity sign warns visitors that the operation is not liable for harm from inherent risks and that they are assuming the risk of participating in agritourism activities. But while it’s an important tool, don’t let the sign replace all of the other recommendations provided in this article.  Read more about the immunity law and the agritourism immunity sign in our law bulletin, Ohio’s Agritourism Law, available on farmoffice.osu.edu.

Agritourism is a thriving industry in Ohio. Taking legal precautions to manage liability risk will help ensure that agritourism remains an important component of Ohio agriculture. To learn more about legal issues in agritourism, visit OSU’s Agritourism Law Library on the Farm Office website at farmoffice.osu.edu/law-library.

Recent collisions involving cattle on Ohio roadways raise the question of who is liable when a farm animal causes a roadway accident?  Ohio’s “animals at large law” helps answer that question. It’s an old law that establishes a legal duty for owners and keepers of farm animals to contain their animals.  The law states that an owner or keeper shall not permit their animals to run at large “in the public road, highway, street, lane, or alley, or upon unenclosed land.”  But as with many laws, the answer to the question of “who’s liable” under the law is “it depends.”  Here’s how the law works.

The law applies to both owners and “keepers.”  The animals at large law places responsibility on both the owners and the “keepers” of the animals.  The reference to “keepers” can expand the duty to someone other than the animal owner.  Ohio courts have interpreted the “keeper” language to include a person “who has physical care or charge” of the animal or has “some degree of management, possession, care, custody or control” over the animal.  Whether someone is a “keeper” is a fact specific determination made on a case-by-case basis.

Animals that must be contained.  Several years ago, Ohio legislators added poultry to the list of animals an owner must prevent from running at large.  The full list of animals an owner or keeper must contain now includes horses, mules, cattle, bison, sheep, goats, swine, llamas, alpacas, and poultry. 

The law creates both civil and criminal liability.  There are two potential outcomes to violating the animals at large law.   The first is civil liability for “negligently permitting”  animals to run at large.  The owner or keeper who does so is responsible for all damages resulting from injury, death, or loss to a person or property caused by the animal.  The second is criminal liability.  An owner or keeper who “recklessly” permits the animals to run at large can be charged with a fourth degree misdemeanor.

An owner’s negligent conduct creates civil liability.  An owner can be liable for “negligently permitting” animals to run at large, but what does “negligently permitting” mean?  Courts have answered this question by stating that the law requires “negligent conduct” by the owner or keeper and that failing to exercise “ordinary care” to contain animals would be negligent conduct.  As an example, a court determined that an owner who leaned a gate against a barn opening without fastening the gate to the barn or to any fence posts did not exercise ordinary care to contain his cattle.  But the law allows an owner to rebut the presumption that the animals were out because of the owner's negligent conduct.  An owner can offer proof of “ordinary care” taken to contain the animal, such as maintaining fences, locking gates, or checking animals regularly.  If the owner had exercised reasonable care and the animals escaped for other reasons, such as being spooked by a storm or a gate left open by someone else, the owner might not be liable for the animals running at large. Whether the owner or keeper “negligently permitted” the escape would be a fact specific determination, made on a case-by-case basis.

Reckless conduct can result in criminal charges.  In the example above, the court determined that the owner who merely leaned a gate up against the barn opening behaved “recklessly.”  Legally, recklessness is acting with complete disregard to the consequences.  Reckless behavior can lead to a criminal charge against the animal owner, with a maximum jail sentence of 30 days and a fine of up to $250.

Reducing liability risk under the animals at large law

1.  Regular management practices.  In the court cases that apply Ohio’s animals at large law, the owner or keeper’s management practices are critically important to a liability determination.  Animal owners and keepers can reduce liability risk by following routine management practices and documenting those practices, which include:

• Regularly checking and maintaining fences.
• Locking gates.
• Inspecting and maintaining stalls and similar enclosures.
• Checking and counting animals regularly, and immediately after a storm or similar event.
• Installing cameras.
• Training employees to follow management practices.

2. The fence matters.  It's also important to build a sufficient fence.  OSU Extension offers helpful resources on fencing in this video on fencing systems by Educator Ted Wiseman and this article on common fencing mistake posted by the OSU Sheep Team.  Be aware that another Ohio law requires a new boundary line fence for livestock to be a certain type of fence.  Ohio’s “partition fence law” requires a new boundary line fence for containing livestock to be:

“a woven wire fence, either standard or high tensile, with one or two strands of barbed wire located not less than forty-eight inches from the ground or a nonelectric high tensile fence of at least seven strands and that is constructed in accordance with the United States natural resources conservation service conservation practice standard for fences, code 382.” If adjacent owners agree in writing, a new line fence to contain livestock can also be a barbed wire, electric, or live fence. 

3. Insurance and business entities.  Insurance is necessary risk management tool for farm animal owners and keepers.  It’s important to review all animals and animal activities with an insurance provider and ensure adequate liability coverage.  In some situations, using a separate business entity like a Limited Liability Company might be helpful for liability purposes.  Animal owners and keepers should consult with insurance and legal advisors to determine individual insurance and legal needs.

Ohio’s animals at large law is in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 951.  Ohio’s partition fence law is in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 971.

With just over a week left until echoes of “Hang on Sloopy” and chants of “O-H” and “I-O” can be heard from Buckeye faithful across the nation, we thought we would provide you with some light reading to hold you over until that long awaited 3:30 kick off. In this edition of our Ag Law Harvest, we focus on three recent Ohio Supreme Court cases that could potentially impact business owners, Northern Ohio landowners, and Ohio taxpayers. 

Assault and Battery: Is it Covered Under an Insurance Policy?
A victim of a stabbing at an Ohio adult care facility is unable to collect judgment from the facility’s insurance company after a recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court. The victim was living at the facility when another resident stabbed him. The perpetrator was later indicted on criminal charges but found not guilty by reason of insanity. 

The victim then filed a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator and the facility to recover for damages resulting from the stabbing injuries. The victim ultimately dropped his lawsuit against the perpetrator and entered into a settlement agreement with the facility. As part of the settlement agreement, the victim agreed not to pursue the judgment against the facility, and instead, sought to collect his judgment from the facility’s insurance company.   

At the time of the stabbing, the adult care facility had a commercial general liability policy. When the victim sought judgment from the facility’s insurance company, the insurance company refused to provide coverage. The insurance company explained that the insurance policy contained a provision that specifically excluded coverage for any bodily injury resulting from an assault or battery. The specific provision at issue stated: 

“1. This insurance does not apply to ‘bodily injury,’ * * * arising out of or resulting from: (a) any actual, threatened or alleged assault or battery; * * *.”

The victim argued that because the perpetrator was found to be not guilty by reason of insanity in the criminal trial, the exclusion provision was nullified because the perpetrator lacked the subjective intent to commit any assault or battery. 

The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed. The Court explained that the plain language of the exclusion provision of the insurance policy at issue is clear – there is no intent requirement included in the exclusion language. Therefore, the Court held that coverage did not exist for the willful assault on the victim. The Court sympathized with the victim but ultimately could not interpret the insurance policy language to include a subjective intent requirement where none existed. 

This case demonstrates the importance of reading and understanding your business insurance policy. Insurance policies are, at the core, contracts between two parties and the language contained within the policy will usually govern that contractual relationship. What you assume is covered under your policy may not necessarily be the case. Furthermore, not all insurance policies are the same. We have seen Ohio cases where an insurance policy does require the presence of some subjective intent in order for an assault and battery exclusion to apply. Speak with your insurance agent and/or attorney to make sure you understand when and where coverage exists, knowing this can be critical to protecting you, your farm, and/or your business. 

Ohio Supreme Court Approves Northern Ohio Wind Farm. 
Residents of Huron and Erie Counties along with Black Swamp Bird Conservatory (the “Plaintiffs”) recently lost their battle in court to prevent the construction of a new wind farm in Northern Ohio. The Plaintiffs argued that the Ohio Power Siting Board (the “Board”) failed to satisfy Ohio law before granting the new wind farm its certificate of environmental compatibility and public need. Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert that the wind farm could “disrupt the area’s water supply, create excessive noise and ‘shadow flicker’ for residents near the wind farm, and kill bald eagles and migrating birds.” 

The Ohio Supreme Court found otherwise. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the Board’s granting of the certificate was unlawful or unreasonable. As approved, the new wind farm will consist of up to 71 turbines and cover 32,000 acres of leased land. To read more about the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision visit: In re Application of Firelands Winds, L.L.C.

Ohio Supreme Court Sets New Precedent on Interpreting Ohio Tax Law.
In Ohio, most retail sales are subject to sales tax unless a certain exemption applies. Ohio law does have a sales tax exemption for equipment used directly in the production of oil and gas. A fracking business recently challenged a decision by Ohio’s Tax Commissioner and Board of Tax Appeals that levied the sales tax on certain equipment purchased by the business. The fracking equipment at issue included: a data van, blenders, sand kings, t-belts, hydration units, and chemical-additive units.

The Tax Commissioner concluded that the fracking equipment was not used directly in the extraction of oil and gas, only indirectly, and therefore, did not qualify for the tax exemption. The Ohio Supreme Court felt differently. 

The Court found that all the equipment, except the data van, is used in unison to expose the oil and gas. Because the equipment is used to expose the oil and gas – a necessary part of fracking – the Court had little difficulty concluding that the equipment is being used directly in the production of oil and gas. 

In addition to the equipment’s direct use in the production of oil and gas, the Court also recognized that the fracking equipment may also have a storage or delivery function/purpose. However, the Court reasoned that a piece of equipment’s function must be viewed through the “primary purpose” lens. For example, the Court held that although the blender equipment in this case performs a holding function, the primary use of the blender is to mix “the critical ingredients in the fracking recipe seconds before the mixture is inserted into the well.” Therefore, the Court found that the blender’s holding function did not disqualify it from Ohio’s sales tax exemption. 

Additionally, in this case, the Court also issued an opinion on how Ohio courts should interpret tax law moving forward. Normally, courts use the ever-important legal principal of stare decisis to help it decide on new cases. Stare decisis is the principal that courts and judges should honor the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases when ruling on new cases. Here, the Court took its opportunity to acknowledge that in the past the Court interpreted tax exemptions against the taxpayer, favoring tax collection. But the Court made clear that from here on out, the Court “will apply the same rules of construction to tax statutes that [it applies] to all other statutes” without a slant toward one side or the other. The Court concluded that its task “is not to make tax policy but to provide a fair reading of what the legislature has enacted: one that is based on the plain language of the [law].” 

To read the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision visit: Stingray Pressure Pumping, L.L.C. v. Harris

We’ve heard from many concerned pork producers since the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on California's controversial animal housing law, Proposition 12 (“Prop 12”).  Enacted as a ballot measure by California voters, the law sets minimum space requirements for sows and prohibits the sale of pork derived from a sow raised in conditions that don't meet the housing standards.  But the California law has yet to go into effect due to a score of lawsuits challenging California's authority to make a state law that negatively affects hog producers in other states. On May 11, the Supreme Court made its decision on one such challenge--National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (“NPPC”).  The 5-4 ruling upholding Prop 12 was not the decision desired by agricultural interests, leading to the questions we've been receiving: is there still a way to prohibit the law?  When and how will California enforce the law?  Will pork producers now begin complying with Prop 12?

An understanding of the court’s reasoning in NPPC is necessary before we can answer these questions. Let’s begin with the following excellent explanation of the case by my colleague Elizabeth Rumley at the National Agricultural Law Center.

The Supreme Court's decision

After considering a constitutional challenge to a California ballot initiative regulating space requirements for farm animals, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) ruled on May 11th in favor of the state of California, allowing the law to stand.  The proposal, known as “Prop 12,” set conditions on the sale of pork meat in California- regardless of where it was produced.  It required, among other things, that all products be from pigs born to a sow housed in at least 24 square feet of space.  This effectively imposed Prop 12’s animal housing standards on any producer, no matter the location, who wished to sell products to residents of California.  This part of the law was promptly challenged and eventually heard by the Supreme Court.

The case, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (“NPPC”) considered whether Prop 12’s regulation of the out-of-state production of products to be sold within state boundaries is a permitted action under a legal doctrine known as the dormant Commerce Clause.  In other words, under what circumstances can a state government pass laws that primarily affect the actions of people in other states? SCOTUS agreed to consider the case, and oral arguments were heard last October.  Many of the arguments centered on whether the law met the provisions of the “Pike balancing test,” which compares local benefits of a law to the burden that it places on out-of-state commerce to determine if the burden is clearly excessive.

NPPC Ruling

While parts of this ruling were agreed upon by all justices, the foundational legal analysis was a split decision, with several justices agreeing and disagreeing as to various parts.  Ultimately, a plurality of the court held that Prop 12 was constitutional and enforceable by California.  A minority of justices would have sent the case back to the district court for further consideration.  The opinion of the Court (joined by the largest number of justices), was written by Justice Gorsuch.

In the initial, unanimously agreed upon, sections of the opinion, Gorsuch focuses on the “antidiscrimination principle” that “lies at the ‘very core’” of dormant commerce clause jurisprudence.  In the clearest situations, this happens if a state set different standards for out-of-state businesses vs in-state businesses (for example, if Prop 12 had required Kansas producers to give pigs more space, but allowed California producers to confine animals in smaller pens).  However, Gorsuch does not apply this principle, instead pointing to a concession by the Pork Producers Council that producers are treated similarly regardless of geography.  Gorsuch then moves on to consider the constitutionality of a law that is not facially discriminatory (as in the hypothetical example above), but has a disproportionate effect on out-of-state businesses.  While the court did not specify whether Prop 12 would fall into this category, it would have ultimately made no difference.  Gorsuch refused to find such a law unconstitutional, writing that “[i]n our interconnected national marketplace, many (maybe most) state laws have the ‘practical effect of controlling’ extraterritorial; behavior.”

Next, Gorsuch considers the Pike balancing test in a series of sections where some justices join in his analysis while others do not.  Pike asks the court to weigh local benefits of a law against the burden it places on out-of-state commerce.  Again, Gorsuch returns to what he sees as an underlying requirement of discriminatory intent, even in the cases decided using the Pike analysis.  He rules, in a section joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Barrett, that the cost/benefit analysis that Plaintiffs argued was not an integral part of the original Pike analysis, and that Pike does not authorize judges to “strike down duly enacted state laws… based on nothing more than their own assessment of the relevant law’s ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’”.  He further highlights the perceived difficulty in doing so as a judicial body; “[h]ow is a court supposed to compare or weigh economic costs (to some) against noneconomic benefits (to others)? No neutral legal rule guides the way.  The competing goods before us are insusceptible to resolution by reference to any judicial principle.”  Instead, he disclaims that cost/benefit role, arguing that the responsibility is better given to those with “the power to adopt federal legislation that may preempt conflicting state laws.”

Gorsuch also considers a framing of Pike that “requires a plaintiff to plead facts plausibly showing that the challenged law imposes ‘substantial burdens’ on interstate commerce before a court may assess the law’s competing benefits or weigh the two sides against each other.”  In a section joined by Justices Thomas, Sotomayor and Kagan, Gorsuch finds that under the facts presented in the complaint, a “substantial harm to interstate commerce remains nothing more than a speculative possibility.”

It’s important to note that the sections of the opinion addressing the Pike test were not adopted by the majority.  While Gorsuch wrote the opinion of the court, his reasoning was not adopted by the entire bench.  In fact, several justices (Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Roberts, joined by Alito, Kavanaugh & Jackson) also wrote or signed onto dissents outlining their disagreements with specific elements of Gorsuch’s reasoning. These justices agree that courts can still consider Pike claims and balance a law’s economic burdens against its noneconomic benefits, even if the challengers do not argue that the law has a discriminatory purpose.  Much like the Rapanos case of WOTUS fame, this case did not result in clearly defined legal doctrine.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote as well, concurring in part and dissenting in part.  He highlighted concerns about the constitutionality of statutes like Prop 12, “not only under the Commerce Clause, but also under the Import-Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.”

NPPC:  What Happens Next?

At least theoretically, other challenges to Prop 12 might be filed on dormant Commerce Clause grounds with more facts presented in the complaint.  This would be possible because a plurality of Justices agreed that the Plaintiffs did not allege facts that would constitute a “substantial harm”.  New complaints, however, might allege facts sufficient to meet that burden.  Those hypothetical challenges may or may not also include some of the additional legal grounds identified in Kavanaugh’s opinion.  But as of right now- and for the foreseeable future- Prop 12 is constitutional.  However, there are other court cases pending that impact the immediate enforceability of Prop 12 and similar laws.

• In California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce v. Ross, retailers asked for an extension of time to come into compliance with Prop 12 regulations for the sale of pork, which was granted by the court.  For retailers selling “whole pork meat,” the regulations may not be enforced until July 1, 2023.  For retailers selling veal and egg products, the regulations are currently effective.

• Massachusetts Restaurant Association v. Healey addresses a 2016 Massachusetts law, similar to Prop 12.  The language of the statute is available here, and the regulations are available here.  The MA law was challenged on dormant Commerce Clause grounds, and the parties agreed to prevent enforcement of the portions of the law relevant to the sale of pork products until 30 days after the NPPC decision was issued by the USSC.  The portions relevant to the sale of egg and veal products are currently effective.

Is there still a possibility of stopping Prop 12 and other efforts to establish farm animal housing standards?

Continued lawsuits against Proposition 12 and other state laws that require certain production standards is a strategy that will likely continue.  As Elizabeth Rumley explained above, the recent NPPC opinion itself lays out two additional options for challenging Proposition 12:  alleging facts sufficient to meet the “substantial harm” requirement and raising the additional constitutional arguments highlighted by Justice Kavanaugh, such as the Import-Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. 

Federal lawmaking is another option.  Justice Gorsuch, in the NPPC decision, highlighted the constitutional power Congress possesses to “regulate Commerce … among the several States.”  The Justice suggested that Congress could displace Prop 12 by exercising its commerce power and enacting legislation that regulates the interstate trade of pork.  Some members of Congress have expressed willingness to include interstate commerce language in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

Others in Congress advocate a different strategy—legislation that restricts states from interfering with animal production practices.   A proposal raised unsuccessfully last year by Sen. Marshall (R-Kan) and Rep. Hinson (R-Iowa) may surface again in the wake of the NPPC.  But even with several options for federal legislation that would prevent Prop 12, many question whether there is sufficient congressional support.  Congress has a long history of unwillingness to overturn any type of state ballot initiative enacted by “the will of the people.” 

When and how will California enforce Prop 12?

With the NPPC decision by the Supreme Court, the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Animal Care Program has issued guidance on how it will enforce Prop 12. The agency had already developed Prop 12 regulations, which require distributors and producers of pork to register and obtain a third-party certification of compliance by January 1, 2024.   For pork producers, certification involves passing an on-site inspection showing compliance with the housing standards and maintaining compliance records and requires an annual renewal process. The agency offers a Sow Housing Guide that illustrates Prop 12’s requirements that a sow’s enclosure be at least 24 square feet and does not prevent the sow from lying down, standing up, fulling extending all limbs without touching the side of the enclosure, or turning around freely. The agency is also presenting several webinars, including a webinar for pork producers on June 27.  

Will pork producers now begin complying with Prop 12?

That’s a question without a legal answer.  Those who do comply with the housing standards will certainly incur economic costs, and some producers had already done so prior to NPPC.  The National Pork Producers Council estimates that converting existing sow housing to meet the Prop 12 standards will run a producer about $3,500 per sow and national costs could total between $1.9 and $3.2 billion.  We can guess that some producers will not or cannot make the new investment, which in turn raises many more questions about the economic and social impacts of Prop 12.  As is often the case with controversial laws like Prop 12, we might always have more questions than answers.