A New York state appeals court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a plaintiff assumed the risk of injury while horseback riding.
The incident occurred when the plaintiff’s left foot became caught in the stirrup when she attempted to mount the horse at Raleigh Hall. As she swung her right leg around the horse, the horse shifted and rose up on its hind legs, causing her to fall.
“The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk provides that ‘by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation’ (Morgan v State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471, 484, 685 N.E.2d 202, 662 N.Y.S.2d 421; see Taylor v Massapequa Int’l. Little League, 261 A.D.2d 396, 397, 689 N.Y.S.2d 523). The risks of falling from a horse or a horse acting in an unintended manner are risks inherent in the sport of horseback riding (see Eslin v County of Suffolk, 18 AD3d 698, 699, 795 N.Y.S.2d 349; Kinara v Jamaica Bay Riding Academy, Inc., 11 AD3d 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). The assumption of risk doctrine also applies to any readily observable condition of the place where the activity is carried on (see Maddox v City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 277, 487 N.E.2d 553, 496 N.Y.S.2d 726; Bruno v Town of Hempstead, 248 A.D.2d 576, 577, 670 N.Y.S.2d 864; Diderou v Pinecrest Dunes, 34 A.D.2d 672, 673, 310 N.Y.S.2d 572).
“Here, the defendants sustained their burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in mounting a horse, including those risks associated with any readily observable defect or obstacle such as the horse shifting, and any increased risk associated with mounting the horse near an obvious incline (see Hund v Gramse, 5 AD3d 1036, 1038, 774 N.Y.S.2d 220; see also Ciocchi v Mercy Coll., 289 A.D.2d 362, 363, 735 N.Y.S.2d 144; Torre v City of Glen Cove, 259 A.D.2d 540, 541, 686 N.Y.S.2d 457; Gahan v Mineola Union Free School Dist., 241 A.D.2d 439, 441, 660 N.Y.S.2d 144). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.”
The court added that the plaintiff’s remaining contention “regarding the alleged vicious propensities of the horse is without merit (see Tilson v Russo, 30 AD3d 856, 859, 818 N.Y.S.2d 311).”
La Sans Kirkland v. Raleigh Hall, et al.; S.Ct. of N.Y., App. Div., 2d Dept.; 2006-02613, 2006-03588, (Index No. 5936/04); 2007 NY Slip Op 1833; 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2608; 3/6/07
Attorneys of Record: (for appellant) Abbott Bushlow & Schechner, LLP, Ridgewood, N.Y. (Richard Schechner of counsel). (for respondent Raleigh Hall) Ryan Perrone & Hartlein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (William D. Hartlein and William T. Ryan of counsel). (for respondent Federation of Black Cowboys, Inc.) Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andrea M. Alonso and Anna Ervolina of counsel).
