Youngstown Daily Legal News

Court upholds license suspension for trainer who allegedly beat horse

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: November 15, 2013

The 10th District Court of Appeals issued an opinion this week affirming a decision to revoke a man’s standardbred race horses trainer’s license after he allegedly beat a horse.

The three-judge appellate panel affirmed the Ohio State Racing Commission’s adjudication order after finding evidence that Darrell Hooser abusively whipped a race horse on a racing track’s premises.

The commission first held a hearing regarding Hooser’s behavior after an incident that took place at the Northfield Park racetrack on July 13, 2011.

On that date, Hooser was working with the horse Suited N Booted and the horse got loose and escaped the barn.

The horse was still attached to a jog cart and caused damage to a few cars, an air conditioning unit and itself.

Hooser injured his ankle when the horse initially escaped and was unable to give chase to the animal.

After a few minutes, Suited N Booted was caught and returned to Hooser.

One witness heard a bystander tell Hooser he was “lucky to have the jog cart still intact and that the horse does not have a nick on it.”

The witness testified that Hooser’s response was “Give me five minutes; he’ll have a nick on him.”

Suited N Booted was then taken to the barn and placed in cross ties to secure him in his stall.

One of the trainers in the barn stated that he heard five or six “whipping sounds” and noticed that Suited N Booted and several other horses were acting “unsettled and agitated.”

A security worker arrived in the barn about 10 minutes later and was concerned that Hooser would whip the horse based on Hooser’s reputation.

She told the commission that she heard Hooser yelling at the horse and saw welt marks on the rear of the horse that were about a foot long and in the shape of an X.

Hooser and his girlfriend, who was also present during the incident, claimed that no whipping took place.

The commission found that Hooser had violated its rules and revoked his license.

Hooser appealed the decision to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and the judge there determined that the order was supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and was in accordance with law.

On appeal to the 10th District, Hooser asserted that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that he violated Ohio Adm.Code 3769-17-18, which prohibits the brutal use of a whip.

The rule states that “excessive or indiscriminate use of the whip or crop shall be considered a violation and shall be punished by a fine and/or suspension.”

“Hooser argues that since this rule falls under the heading of ‘Chapter 3760-177 Owner and Driver Rules; Violations’ it does not apply to this situation since the horse was not in a race and was not being driven,” Judge Gary Tyack wrote for the court.

The judges disagreed and ruled that the commission may regulate conduct in a barn and on a licensed premise when racing is being conducted and that the chapter heading does not exclude all other classes of people.

“A quick reading of the rules in the chapter shows that trainers, groomers and judges are all regulated within the chapter along with owners and drivers,” Judge Tyack stated.

Hooser also claimed there was no direct evidence that any one saw him whipping Suited N Booted and therefore the commission could not determine if his behavior was “brutal, excessive or indiscriminate.”

The judges held that they must give considerable deference to the commission’s interpretation of its own rules and that it was permitted to make reasonable inferences from the evidence.

They also found that the rules prohibit drivers from using a whip in such a way that would cause a visible injury.

In this case, a security guard testified that she saw welts on the horse. The appellate judges maintained that this could be interpreted as direct evidence of Hooser violating the rules.

Hooser next contended that hearsay testimony about his past conduct and reputation were improperly relied upon.

The judges stated that the commission was not subject to the same evidence rules and was permitted to use the reputation evidence.

“The hearing officer was not strictly bound by the rules of evidence and there was sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence of the incident to find there was sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence of the incident to find there was a violation,” Judge Tyack wrote.

Finding that the trial court properly determined that the commission relied on the proper evidence at Hooser’s hearing, the appellate judges affirmed the suspension of his license.

Judge Julia Dorrian and retired Judge Thomas Bryant concurred.

The case is cited Hooser v. Ohio State Racing Comm., 2013-Ohio-4888.

[Back]