An Appellate Court has ruled that horses are "inherently viscous."

The fallout from this ruling could be bad news for all horse owners.

At the heart of the controversy is a horse named Scubby, who to his owner's knowledge had never bitten anybody until a young boy tried to pet his face. He was bitten on his right cheek while visiting Glendale Farms, in Connecticut.

As the resulting lawsuit reached the Connecticut Appellate Court, the horse's owner testified that any person who came into contact with Scubby, whether to pet him or feed him, could get bit. The court then ruled that Scubby is a member of "a species naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious."

Angry horse owners and animal activists are challenging the ruling by taking the case to the state's Supreme Court.

If the Appellate Court ruling is upheld, and horses are classified as "inherently vicious", owning horses would be un-insurable.

This is the first ruling of it's kind in the United States, and horse owners are concerned that it could set a precedent.

What do you think? Shouldn't all animals be judged and evaluated according to their individual temperament? Cats scratch and bite. So do dogs. Are they all inherently vicious too?