4082

VETOES

their true employer -- the trainer -- would be artificially
severed by this legislation and replaced with an indirect
relationship between owners and backstretch employees. Current
practice reveals, for the most part, that trainers engage the
services of backstretch personnel on a continuous basis and that
a trainer often handles the horses of several owners. In most
instances it is the trainer who employs and supervises these
individuals and not the owner. The Maryland Racing Commission,
as well as virtually every other racing regulatory authority in
the country, has regarded backstretch personnel as the employees
of trainers and requires that workmen's compensation coverage be
provided for these employees as a condition of licensure.

In the context of the ordinary relationships among trainers,
backstretch employees, and owners, House Bill 1119 presents
serious questions of legal liability in terms of the responsible
policyholder and the extent of coverage provided. For example,
often several owners avail themselves of the services of a
trainer who, in turn, employs backstretch personnel for the
handling of several horses at once. If a groom sustains an
injury in a stable or other common area while tending several
horses owned by different persons, liability becomes problematic.
Significant gaps in the coverage afforded these individuals may
result where it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine who
the employer is at the time of injury. The lack of clearly
defined liability would in all likelihood prompt lengthy
litigation and thus prove counterproductive to the interest of an
injured employee. This is in contrast to the current practice
whereby coverage, provided by the trainer, is clearly defined and
is extended to these employees while performing their assigned
functions. In my view, this proposed departure from current
practice is unnecessary and may be harmful to the employee. It
is this particular feature of House Bill 1119 that I find most
unreasonable.

With respect to the classification of jockeys as the
noncasual employees of the owners of thoroughbred racehorses, I
find this to be a more difficult issue in light of the following
observations.

First, the true relationship between a jockey and an owner
has been adjudged by the Court of Appeals to be one of a strictly
casual nature — an express exemption from coverage under the
Workmen's Compensation Law. In two cases it was held that the
relationship between owner and jockey is single, isolated,
complete in itself, connected to no past or future employment,
and completed when the race is over. I believe that this
assessment of the relationship between these individuals remains
accurate and, therefore, question the policy of classifying
jockeys as the noncasual employees of the owner.

Second, the accounting and risk management issues associated
with implementing this bill may be significant to the owner. The
assessment of risk, adequate coverage, and determinations of