Animals

Welcome to our third installment in our continuing series on provisions affecting agriculture in the recently passed State Operating Budget, or House Bill 96. Our previous blog posts in this series focused on changes to ag permits and licensing and to pesticide application laws, which you can find here and here. This week, our focus will be on the effects of H.B. 96 on apiaries throughout the state of Ohio.

Adjustments and additions to definitions

Under current Ohio law, an “apiary” is defined as “any place where one or more colonies or nuclei of bees are kept,” and “queen rearing apiaries” are defined as “any apiary in which queen bees are reared for sale or gift.” H.B. 96 changes the definition of “queen rearing apiaries” to “any apiary in which queens are raised or purchased for sale, trade, or gift; or otherwise distributed or used to create, for sale, trade or gift, nucs, packages or colonies.”  Thus, the budget bill expands the definition of “queen rearing apiaries” to not only include apiaries where queens are raised for distribution, but also apiaries where queens are purchased for distribution in order to create bee colonies.

H.B. 96 also adds a definition to the law governing apiaries.  In the budget bill, “nuc” is defined as a small colony of bees in a hive box to which all of the following applies:

1. The hive box contains three to five frames.
2. The hive box contains a laying queen bee and the queen’s progeny in egg, larval, pupa, and adult stages.
3. The small colony has honey and a viable population sufficient enough to develop into a full-sized economy.

These changes to definitions under the apiary law appear to have been made to increase the number of apiaries ODA has the authority to regulate, as you will see in the next section.  The ultimate goal of these changes seems to be for ODA to have more oversight over the health and safety of apiaries in Ohio.

Compliance, registrations, certification

Ohio apiarists should also be aware that H.B. 96 makes changes to compliance requirements under the apiary law. New language in H.B. 96 requires any person engaged in the rearing of queen bees to have a written compliance agreement with ODA. Under the agreement, the person must agree to comply with the requirements stipulated by ODA.

Furthermore, new language states that each person intending to sell, trade, gift, or otherwise distribute queen bees, packaged bees, nucs, or colonies will now be required to request that ODA certify all of a person’s queen rearing apiaries. A certification fee of fifty dollars or another amount specified by ODA in rulemaking is also created. According to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, the introduction of this $50 fee will bring in approximately $41,000 annually to benefit the Plant Pest Program Fund.

 H.B. 96 authorizes ODA to require all queen rearing apiaries to be inspected as specified in rules at least annually, whereas the previous language required inspections once each year with no authority to alter inspection frequency. This change would seemingly give ODA the ability to inspect apiaries more frequently, and as a result, they could keep a better eye on any problems with individual apiaries. Previously, if such an inspection found that there was a serious bee disease or that Africanized honey bees were present, bee owners were subject to certain rules. The new language also includes the finding of bee “pests” to trigger these rules, which appears to give ODA another tool to keep bee populations throughout the state safe.  Once disease or pest problem is resolved, ODA can issue an official certificate attesting to this.  Producers must include a copy of this certificate with each queen, nuc, or colony they distribute. Such a certificate will expire on May 31^st of the following year and may be renewed annually. H.B. 96 also outlaws the distribution of bees, honeycombs, or used beekeeping equipment that contains a serious bee disease or pest.

Ohio law requires any person owning or possessing bees to register with ODA, and H.B. 96 makes some tweaks to this registration process.  Under the new language, a person must apply for registration on or before the first day of June each year, or thereafter within thirty days after owning or possessing the bees or moving bees into Ohio from another state.  Previously, an owner had ten days to apply for registration, so the new language gives people a bit more time.  New language also requires owners to register each of their apiaries, regardless of whether the apiary is located at their place of residence or elsewhere. H.B. 96 also eliminates the five dollar registration fee.

H.B. 96 also gives the director of ODA the power to suspend any apiary registration, certificate, permit, or compliance agreement for cause.

When will these changes become effective?

The budget bill becomes effective on September 30, 2025. The Ohio State Beekeepers Association (OSBA) has been working with ODA throughout the month of July to get more clarity about what the language changes mean for beekeepers, and how regulations will be carried out under the new law. OSBA’s page dedicated to information about H.B. 96 is available here. ODA’s website on apiaries is located here.

As always, H.B. 96 is available in its entirety here. Stay tuned to the Ag Law Blog for more updates on the State Budget and its effect on agriculture.

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