Suits Alleging Negligence Ruled Not Applicable in Inherently Risky Activities

There are some sports and events we participate in that carry obvious risks. These can be as mundane as eating undercooked foods despite clear warnings against the practice, or as extraordinary as playing extreme sports without proper training or supervision. One hobby that is well-known for carrying dangers to even the most experienced is horseback riding. No matter how well supervised the rider nor how much safety equipment is worn, a half-ton animal moving at speed, particularly around other easily startled animals, is unavoidably hazardous. A recent ruling in California determined that a rider was not able to sue for negligence based on the intrinsically dangerous nature of any equestrian activity.

Risks of all horse related interaction

While football gets a lot of press, the leading sports for traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are actually those involving horses, with over 42% of sports-related TBIs occurring in equestrians. In terms of fatalities, for both rider and horse, the numbers are also grim. The dangers continue even on the ground: simply handling horses is considered to be such a perilous endeavor that all farms with horses display clear signage warning of the risks for any person entering the property.

The case in California

In the lawsuit in question, Kathleen Swigart alleged that during a 50-mile endurance ride, the actions of fellow-rider Carl Bruno constituted negligence and led directly to her injury. At the time of the incident, Swigart was not mounted. Bruno’s horse bumped the horse of another rider, Diane Stevens. Stevens’ horse took offense at the interaction and kicked out at Bruno, who fell. Bruno’s horse, meanwhile, bolted and injured Swigart as she stood nearby.

The essential question in the suit, however, was whether negligence could be assessed at all in a situation that carried myriad built-in dangers, of which every participant was well aware. How do we know the participants were cognizant of the risks of the event? Each signed a Liability Release prior to beginning the activity. Furthermore, negligence only applies when there is either an intention to cause harm, or when an individual behaves in a manner completely inconsistent with normal activity. Because of the nature of horses and their tendency to see every situation as a threat, and then flee, as well as their natural herd tendency to be in close quarters, video of the event in question was requested to determine whether the bump was or was not of a routine and expected nature for this type of riding activity. Upon review, the California Court of Appeals found numerous instances of horse to horse contact of the kind that led Bruno’s horse to be kicked by Stevens’ and thus ruled that Swigart did not have grounds for her suit alleging negligence on the part of Bruno.

The case of Swigart and Bruno illustrates that even in inherently risky activities, it takes careful scrutiny to determine whether or not there is negligence at play. At Plattner Verderame, P.C., we help our clients when negligence was involved in their catastrophic injuries, and work closely with them through the entire litigation process. For more help, please contact our knowledgeable Phoenix catastrophic injury lawyers by calling 602-266-2002 or filling out our contact form.