|
|
Plaintiff Gorlin was injured during a riding lesson when her already bucking horse was horse was caused to stip abruptly. Plainteff fell when owner’s daughter ran at the horse shouting “whoa.” Court held that fallin from horse was withing those risks contemplated by the release.
Plaintiff Charlene Gorlin appeals a judgment from the first stage of a bifurcated trial in favor of defendants David Jacobson, Jean Jacobson, Sweet Spot Farms (collectively Jacobsons) and Natalie Jean. Gorlin sustained injuries from a fall during a horseback riding lesson at the Jacobsons' ranch after Jean interrupted the lesson and startled the horse. We conclude the trial court properly admitted parol evidence to find that Gorlin had signed a release of liability agreement which barred her from pursuing this action. We affirm.
Gorlin took horseback riding lessons from instructor Vallory McGraw
at the Jacobsons' ranch. During one riding lesson, Gorlin's horse
"started to buck." McGraw stated in her deposition that Gorlin "was
completely balanced on the horse even though the horse was bucking."
McGraw told Gorlin, "Keep him moving. Keep his head up. Sit deep." But
Jean, the adult daughter of the Jacobsons, ran towards the horse and
yelled, " 'whoa.' " The horse followed Jean's command to stop, causing
Gorlin to fall and sustain injuries. Before this incident, Jean's
mother had repeatedly told Jean that she was not authorized to be at
the training area. Gorlin sued Jean and the Jacobsons for negligence.
They raised the defense of assumption of the risk.
The Summary Judgment Motion
Jean and the Jacobsons moved for summary judgment. They said that
Gorlin had signed a release of liability (riding agreement) before she
took riding lessons on their ranch. It said in relevant part: "I ...
forever release and discharge Jean and David Jacobson and all other
persons ... who are or might be liable in any way, of and from any
claims, demands, actions, or causes of action ... which I may have
against any of them, arising from or by reason of any and all, known
and unknown, foreseen and unforeseen bodily and personal injuries ...
which I ... may sustain by reason of entering upon the property ... for
the purposes of riding, grooming, or handling horses...."
Gorlin later signed a "boarding agreement" where the Jacobsons agreed
to take care of Gorlin's horse. It said in part: "It is agreed that
during the term of this contractual agreement the risk of loss shall be
assumed by the Owner [Gorlin] in the event of loss or injury of the
horse(s) and equipment and ... Gorlin agrees to hold [the Jacobsons]
harmless from such loss or injury. Owner furthermore agrees to hold
Operator harmless from any claim resulting from damage or injury caused
by said horses except when caused by the negligence of the operator."
Gorlin submitted a declaration opposing summary judgment from Rod
Bergen, an equine expert. He said the standard of care requires the
student rider to be "solely in the hands of his/her instructor and does
not allow for any outside interference...."
The court denied the motion.
The Bifurcated Trial
The trial court ruled there was a conflict between the riding
agreement's release of liability provisions and the boarding
agreement's liability provision. It determined parol evidence was
needed to resolve the ambiguity. It said, "it would be more efficient
to take up the contract issue first, then the negligence issue." It
held a bifurcated trial on what the parties intended when they signed
the two agreements. It excluded evidence about the accident and Jean's
conduct.
The Jacobsons testified all horseriders must sign the riding agreement
regardless of whether they boarded horses there. Gorlin signed the
boarding agreement. She said, "I was boarding my horse there and I knew
there was going to be an agreement for the purpose of that, and I don't
remember ... that it was more than that."
The court found that the boarding agreement did not modify the riding
agreement's release of liability provision and it was "obligated to
enforce" the riding agreement release. It entered judgment for the
defendants.
I. The Release
Gorlin contends the court erred 1) by admitting parol evidence to
determine the intention of the parties and 2) by not finding that the
boarding agreement superseded the riding agreement's release of
liability provision. We disagree. If "a writing is fairly susceptible
to one or two constructions, extrinsic evidence may be received to ...
ascertain the true intent of the parties...." (Sass v. Hank (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 207, 214 .)
The court should hear testimony if the parties dispute the meaning of
contractual terms. (Morey v. Vannucci (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 904,
912 .) "Even if a contract appears unambiguous on its face, a
latent ambiguity may be exposed by extrinsic evidence...." (Ibid.)
Here the court properly heard testimony to determine if the parties
intended to modify the initial release when they signed the boarding
agreement. It correctly noted that the two documents were "in
conflict," leaving an "ambiguity" about intent. This issue could not be
resolved by only reviewing the documents.
Jean and the Jacobsons claim substantial evidence supports the finding
that the boarding agreement did not modify the riding agreement's
release of liability provision. We again agree. Mr. Jacobson said
horseriders on his property must sign the riding agreement whether or
not they boarded horses there. Mrs. Jacobson said she reminded Gorlin
when she signed the boarding agreement that she had also previously
signed the riding agreement. It was their policy to tell horseriders,
"[I]f they get hurt ... while they're riding, that they ... won't sue
us."
Moreover, the agreements had different purposes. The boarding agreement
allowed the Jacobsons to care for Gorlin's horse. The riding agreement
specifically related to riding horses on the ranch. The boarding
agreement did not supersede the riding agreement's release of liability
provision.
II. The Judgment
Gorlin contends the court erred by entering judgment against her. We
disagree. Here Gorlin signed a release where she expressly assumed the
risk for injuries from horseback riding accidents on the ranch. She was
injured while engaging in that activity. The release "operates to
relieve the defendant of a legal duty to the plaintiff with respect to
the risks encompassed by the agreement...." (Allabach v. Santa Clara County Fair Assn.
(1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1013 .)
Parties may utilize releases to limit liability for those providing
recreational facilities and activities. (Lund v. Bally's Aerobic Plus, Inc. (2000) 78
Cal.App.4th 733, 739.) "In personal injury cases arising from
sporting activities, a defendant cannot be charged with a duty to
protect the plaintiff from risks inherent in the sport. Those risks are
borne by the plaintiff...." (Vine v. Bear Valley Ski Co. (2004) 118
Cal.App.4th 577, 582.)
An expected risk for those taking horseback riding lessons is that they
may fall from the horse. (Harrold v. Rolling J Ranch (1993) 19
Cal.App.4th 578, 587.) "A horse can stumble or rear or suddenly
break into a gallop, any of which may throw the rider." (Ibid.)
Gorlin was not an experienced rider. Even professional jockeys fall
from horses.
Gorlin contends that Jean should not have been in the riding area and
her conduct frightened and confused the horse. But horses may be
frightened by a variety of events. They may bolt and throw riders when
they are afraid or confused by the appearance of trains. (Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co. (1997) 15 Cal.4th
456, 471.) They may be frightened by loud noises from garbage
trucks. (Id. at p. 460.) But horseback riders
injured by falls may not sue sanitation companies because horses react
badly to loud noises. (Id. at p. 485.)
The prospect that Gorlin's horse might encounter an animal or a person
that would influence its behavior was something any rider could
reasonably anticipate. It was a risk Gorlin agreed to accept in order
to be able to ride horses on the ranch. Jean's conduct does not change
the result. Even if Jean's actions were ill advised, Gorlin's theory of
liability is not based on the claim that Jean deliberately tried to
harm her. (Parsons v. Crown DisposalCo., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 481.) Gorlin
was under McGraw's supervision. Neither Jean nor the Jacobsons selected
the area, conditions or time when the riding lesson would take place.
The events leading to Gorlin's fall were within the risks covered by
the release. Gorlin has not shown error.
We have reviewed the parties' remaining contentions. They would not
change the result.
The judgment is affirmed. Costs to defendants.
We concur: YEGAN and PERREN, JJ.