|
|
ESLIN v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division
2005 WL 1220730
May 23, 2005
Summary of Opinion
The plaintiff fell from a rental horse after the horse took off at a gallop. She signed a release in which she acknowledged more than 10 hours of riding experience. She also initialed paragraphs warning that horses could stop short or change speed at will. This court rules that plaintiff assumed the risk of the dangers or riding horses.
Text of Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal
injuries, the defendant Deep Hollow, Ltd., i/s/a Deep Hollow and
Gardner Leaver Ranch, d/b/a Deep Hollow Ranch, appeals from an order of
the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated October 22,
2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint insofar as Iasserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the
law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed
insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the
remaining defendants is severed.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she
fell from a horse while horseback riding at a ranch operated by the
defendant Deep Hollow, Ltd., i/s/a Deep Hollow and Gardner Leaver
Ranch, d/b/a Deep Hollow Ranch (hereinafter Deep Hollow Ranch). Before
her accident, the plaintiff completed a "Horse Rental Agreement and
Liability Release Form" (hereinafter the Agreement) in which she
indicated that she had over 10 hours of riding experience. She
initialed the paragraphs in the Agreement which warned of the risks
inherent in horseback riding, including that the horses could stop
short or change directions or speed at will. The plaintiff claims that
she fell from the horse when, without warning, it took off into a
gallop from a canter and her foot dislodged from the stirrup.
Voluntary participants in a sporting
activity are presumed to have consented to those injury-causing events
which are known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable (see
Turcotte
v. Fell, 68
N.Y.2d 432, 439, 510 N.Y.S.2d 49, 502 N.E.2d 964). In support of
its motion for summary judgment, Deep Hollow Ranch submitted prima
facie evidence that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury, because
being thrown from a horse or a horse acting in an unintended manner are
dangers inherent in the sport of horseback riding (see
Kinara
v. Jamaica Bay Riding Academy, 11
A.D.3d 588, 783 N.Y.S.2d 636;
Becker
v. Pleasant Val. Farms, 261 A.D.2d 427, 690 N.Y.S.2d 76;
Freskos
v. City of New York, 243 A.D.2d 364, 663 N.Y.S.2d 174;
Morrelli
v. Giordano, 206 A.D.2d 464, 614 N.Y.S.2d 565;
Rubenstein
v. Woodstock Riding Club, 208 A.D.2d 1160, 1161, 617 N.Y.S.2d 603;
cf.
Irish
v. Deep Hollow, 251
A.D.2d 293, 294, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1024). Thus, Deep Hollow Ranch
established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing
the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see
Zuckerman
v. City of New York, 49
N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). In opposition,
the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see
Zuckerman
v. City of New York, supra ).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are
without merit.