As many of our clients can attest, stable hands, grooms, and back-stretch workers play a vital role in the care and maintenance of horses and other farm animals. But who is responsible for the health and welfare of these workers? A recent Kentucky Supreme Court case, Gaines Gentry Thoroughbreds/Fayette Farms v. Mandujano, et al.,[1] shows that responsibility for these employees' safety often lies with the farm employer - even in seemingly remote circumstances.

It is common practice in the equine industry to require employee grooms to travel with horses during transport to races, auctions, or shows. The inherent unpredictability of Thoroughbreds necessitates constant attention from the grooms, who usually travel in the cabin of the transport van or trailer alongside the horses. Frequently, as was the case in Mandujano, grooms are left to find their own return transportation, especially when the groom needs or wants to stay following transport in order to participate in the sale or to perform temporary work for another client. Permitting or instructing grooms to participate in these one-way trips, however, can be riskier than many horse farm employers think and the farm's responsibility likely does not end upon the groom's arrival to the destination.

In 2007, Adan Mandujano was employed as a groom and stable hand for Gaines Gentry Thoroughbreds ("Gaines Gentry") in its Kentucky operation. On one occasion, Gaines Gentry instructed Mandujano to accompany several select yearlings to a horse sale in Saratoga, New York. Mandujano rode in the back of a van with the yearlings during the trip, and upon arrival he helped prep and show the horses.

Consistent with usual practice, Mandujano was left on his own to find his way back to Lexington because he wanted to remain at the sale for a few more days and to perform extra work for other consignors. There was no set date for his return to the Gaines Gentry farm and Gaines Gentry consented to him taking time off to conduct work for other consignors. Eventually, a friend offered to take Mandujano back to Lexington and he accepted. During this return trip Mandujano was seriously injured in an automobile accident.

Mandujano subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He argued that the accident and resulting injuries were related to his work with Gaines Gentry for several reasons: the travel that led to his injuries was a regular incident of his employment; travel to and from Saratoga involved an exception to the "going and coming" rule; and his employment exposed him to the risk of being sent to a horse sale with no offer of return transportation.  

(READ FULL ARTICLE)