top of page

News

Plaintiff Rides Again: Dude Ranch’s Motion for Summary Judgment Denied (NY)

March 27, 2019

Share to:

<p style="text-align: justify;">In <em><a href="http://blog.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SARA-W-by-HENNY-W-v-Rocking-Horse-Ranch-Corporation.pdf">SARA W by HENNY W v Rocking Horse Ranch Corporation</a>, </em>plaintiffs commenced an action seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff, who was 16-years-old, when she fell from a horse while at defendant's dude ranch. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the theory of assumption of the risk, but was denied by the lower court. Defendant appealed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, although “participants in the sporting activity of horseback riding assume commonly appreciated risks inherent in the activity, such as being kicked ..., ‘[p]articipants will not be deemed to have assumed unreasonably increased risks’ ”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In support of its motion, defendant submitted the deposition testimonies of the infant and Robert Gilbert, a certified horse wrangler employed by defendant who assisted the infant, to show that it exercised care in ensuring that the horse riding conditions were as safe as they appeared to be. Gilbert's testimony established that the infant was provided with an appropriate horse for a beginner's trail, helmets were required of infants participating in the ride, the infant was provided with instructions prior to the ride and a horse wrangler accompanied the riders during the trail ride and also assisted the riders when dismounting. Importantly, the infant herself testified that she was aware that there were risks involved in the activity, as she had been on horseback riding trails prior to the incident.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Plaintiff contended that defendant was negligent in helping her dismount the horse. The infant's description of the incident differs from Gilbert's description. Specifically, the infant testified that Gilbert moved away from her and towards the horse's head to tame it and that it was this movement by Gilbert that caused the horse to move, leading to the infant's fall.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Appellate Division, Third Department agreed with lower court and upheld their decision finding a question of fact. The Appellate Division held that although defendant attempted to provide adequate assistance on dismount, there still remains a question of fact as to whether defendant’s response to the situation, in light of evidence that the infant was a novice and that the horse was jittery and jumpy, heightened the risk of her fall, thereby unreasonably increasing the risks of horseback riding.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">As we highlighted some years ago reporting on <a href="http://blog.wcmlaw.com/2011/05/assumption-of-risk-defense-not-bar-to-horseback-riding-suit/"><em>Corcia v. Rocking Horse Ranch</em></a>, there will be a question of fact whenever a plaintiff presents evidence that the defendant increased the risk at hand.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thanks to Paul Vitale for his contribution to this post.</p>

Headshot of Staff Member
Button
Button
Button
Button

Contact

bottom of page