Sometimes you’re the windshield, and sometimes you’re the horse.

This week, a Wisconsin woman filed a personal injury lawsuit against the owners of a reckless horse that allegedly ran into her car.

According to the Madison/St. Claire Record, the plaintiff, Melva Lee Yates, claims that she was driving her 1995 Pontiac Grand Am in late 2008 when a horse owned by the defendants charged into her vehicle.

The complaint, filed in St. Clair County Court, alleges that during the car accident Yates suffered injuries to her back, right knee, right hip, and other parts, as well as extensive pain and mental anguish. In addition, she claims that she had to miss several days of work as a result of her injuries.

Since Yates cannot sue the offending animal, she has filed a third-party negligence claim against the defendants, Gerald and Connie Cummings. In the complaint, Yates says she is seeking a judgment of over $200,000.

In order to make a valid negligence claim, Yates’ complaint alleges that the defendants were responsible for the animal and failed to keep it under control.

Specifically, the complaint says that the defendants negligently failed to keep their horse under control, failed to keep the animal properly corralled, and failed to take other measures that would have prevented the horse from battering the vehicle.

In order to secure a judgment for negligence against the defendants, Yates must prove several elements.

These elements include proving that the Cummings had a legal duty to control their horse, and that they breached this duty by failing to prevent the horse from striking the car. Moreover, Yates must also show that the horse caused her injuries, and that her injuries led to actual damages that the court will able to calculate.

According to one commenter, courts typically apply the standard of strict liability to animal injury claims.

In strict liability cases, the defendants are held liable if a certain act occurs, regardless of whether their actions meet the elements of negligence.

For example, in cases where a dangerous animal bites a person, the court holds the owners responsible even if their actions don’t meet the negligence standard because of the high likelihood of an attack.

In the Yates case, the court is not likely to apply a strict liability standard because horses rarely run into cars and cause injury. Since the owners had no reason to suspect the horse would behave violently, Yates will likely have to prove that they acted negligently in failing to keep their horse properly penned.

Unfortunately, animal attacks occur fairly often. If you have been the victim of an animal attack, even if it’s a simple dog bite, consider contacting a personal injury lawyer to learn more about your legal rights and options.