|
|
 |
Horse Injuries
-
Lista v. Newton, ---N.Y.S.2d ---, 2007 WL 1653167, 2007
N.Y. Slip Op. 05029 (4 Dept., 2007)
Plaintiff fell from a ladder while installing horse stalls in a barn and
sued the owners under Labor Law and common-law negligence actions.
Plaintiff heard a horse trotting, a clanging sound, and then remembers
he was lying on the ground with a horse licking his face. There
was no evidence in the record regarding the cause of the accident.
The Appellate Division found that the Supreme Court erred in denying
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Labor Law §240(1) provides an exemption from liability for owners
of dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work
(finding that the structure being a barn did not alter the
analysis). In addition, the common-law negligence fails since
cases involving injuries inflicted by domestic animals may only proceed
under strict liability based on the owner’s knowledge of the
animal’s vicious propensities. Even if the Defendant raised
a strict liability claim, it would not survive since there was no
evidence regarding any vicious propensity on the part of the horse or
defendants’ knowledge of a propensity.
-
Dalton v. Adirondack Saddle Tours, Inc., 40 A.D.3d 1169,
836 N.Y.S.2d 303, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 03811 (3 Dept., 2007)
A group of four riders, a guide and the guide’s son were on a
beginner’s level trail where Plaintiff’s horse would stop to
graze. Plaintiff refused the offer of a helmet for herself.
The guide gave the group instructions of maneuvering the horses and
specifically informed Plaintiff that her horse had a habit of stopping
to graze, upon which she should pull up the reins and use her feet to
get the horse moving again. Plaintiff in urging the horse to run
and catch up fell off and was injured. Plaintiff sued the
horseback business, a New York domestic corporation.
Plaintiff sought monetary damages under a theory of strict liability on
vicious propensities of the horse, common-law negligence and breach of
contract. The Supreme Court granted defendant’s first cause
of action, but allowed the other two. The Appellate Division
dismissed the entire claim holding that a participant in a recreational
activity such as horseback riding assumes risks which are inherent in
and arise out of the nature of the activity. An inherent risk in
horseback riding is the sudden and unintended actions of the animals,
including those resulting in the participant being thrown or
falling. Although the experience of the participant is relevant to
see whether they appreciated and voluntarily assumed the risks of the
activity, some risks are so obvious that even an inexperienced
participant is charged with knowledge of them. Further in this
case, Plaintiff had urged the horse to run and catch up several times,
so must have become aware of the risk that the horse might suddenly
run. Plaintiff did not express concern or assistance on the
initial occasions. Therefore there was no common-law
negligence.
The breach of contract claim premised on the Plaintiff did not receive
the value of the trail ride since Defendant failed to provide her with a
mount suitable for riding also failed as there was not any defect or
unreasonable behavior in the horse.
 |
|
