(plaintiff was kicked and injured while trying to restrain a horse at large; plaintiff sued horse’s owner and landlord of property alleging strict liability and negligence; trial court granted summary judgment to defendants and also held plaintiff assumed the risk of the activity; appellate court held defendants were not subject to strict liability under state law because injury occurred on third party’s property; court found, however, that questions of fact existed regarding whether the owner breached a duty of care and whether the landlord was negligent for renting the property with defects or assuming the role of maintaining the property from which the horse escaped; appellate court also held trial court erred in finding plaintiff’s claim was barred based on primary assumption of the risk because state law provided for citizens to take and confine animals at large; case remanded).