Equine Liability Statutes that DO NOT Protect Stables

All but four states in the country have what is called an "equine activity liability" statute that limits lawsuits against stables for cases related to the inherent risk of riding horses. These statutes were passed because, without them, it was feared stables could not operate given the high risks of injury involved. However, because these statutes do exist, stables in these states sometimes grow careless regarding their policies and procedures, particularly around the issue of requiring riders to sign liability release waivers. Carelessness is not rewarded in the law. A recent Massachusetts appellate court case, Pinto v. Revere Saugus Riding Academy, highlights this risk, which is inherent for stables operating a lesson program. This case, decided in the summer of 2009, involved a stable that had relied on the protections of the Massachusetts Equine Activity Liability Statute, M.G.L. c. 128, Section 2D, Subsection A. The statute states in pertinent part that, "Except as provided in subsection (c ), an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person, which shall include a corporation or partnership, shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities and, except as provided in said subsection (c ), no participant nor participant's representative shall make any claim against, maintain an action against, or recover from an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person for injury, loss, damage, or death of the participant resulting from any of the inherent risks of equine activities." G.L. c. 128, § 2D, inserted by St.1992, c. 212. This statute is similar to the statute of many states that seek to limit liability from injuries to horseback riders. In this particular case, a Superior Court judge had thrown the case out on a motion for summary judgment filed by the stable in a decision that relied on the statute's limitation of liability indicated above. However, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reviewed this action and instead found that the case should go back on the trial docket in Superior Court. This was based on the theory that the facts showed enough grounds to believe the stable had "provided the equine and failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, and determine the ability of the participant to safely manage [the horse], and as a result, the plaintiff was injured." The rider in this case, did indicate to the stable that she was a beginner. The evidence that the court relied on to reverse the trial court's judgment was that a farrier apparently had a difficult time riding the horse before the plaintiff's ride, and when the horse was brought to the Plaintiff, the stable manager asked the Plaintiff if she wanted to mount the horse. According to the plaintiff, the horse was prancing and tossing his head and showing too much "energy". In sending the case back to the trial court, the court stated that "the 'skittish' conduct of the horse was enough for the equine professional to be 'put on notice' that the stable manager, or a reasonable professional in her place, that at that time, the plaintiff, a beginner, did not have sufficient ability to ride the horse." The appeals court was unclear in its decision as to the source of the evidence recounted above, other than mentioning evidence contained in the plaintiff's deposition. The potential for self-serving statements by plaintiffs seems not to have been addressed in the decision. The court did note that this horse had never had any problems in the past, but found that this lack of previous complaint was trumped by the Plaintiff's evidence.