By Robert E. Freeman, with Meredith A. Lipson, Wyatt B. Bui and Evan T. Rodgers, of Proskauer
A ride in a horse-drawn carriage may sound like a relaxing family activity, but does it leave passengers responsible for their own injuries in the event of a crash? According to the Michigan Court of Appeals, in most cases the answer is yes (Goch v. The Edison Institute, No. 371176 (Mich. App. Oct. 17, 2025), motion for reconsideration denied (Nov. 25, 2025)).
After Rebecca Goch (“Goch” or “Plaintiff”) was involved in a crash as a horse-drawn carriage passenger, she sued the carriage’s operators for damages. But the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for the carriage operators finding that they were exempt from liability under the Michigan Equine Activity Liability Act, M.C.L. 691.1661 et seq. (“EALA” or “Act”), which shields equine activity sponsors from liability for injuries or death resulting from “an inherent risk of an equine activity.” By hopping in the carriage, Goch became a “participant” under the Act, according to the court, and her prospects of recovering damages dashed away.
The Henry Ford is a Michigan museum whose 80+ acre Greenfield Village location, the site of Henry Ford’s childhood home, offers visitors various attractions and activities to step back into time, including horse-drawn carriage rides. In July 2022, Goch took her family to Greenfield Village and together they boarded a horse-drawn carriage, known as an omnibus. During the ride, one horse’s bridle and blinders fell off after it rubbed against another horse, causing it to become agitated and start to bolt. The driver ultimately had to steer the carriage into a lamppost to stop the dangerous runaway. Goch alleged that during this episode she was “tossed around” and struck her head, leading to persistent blurred vision.
In April 2023, Goch sued the operator of The Henry Ford and the carriage driver (collectively, the “Defendants”) under various theories of negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the EALA shielded them from liability as an equine activity sponsor and that there was no willful and wanton misconduct that would fall outside the EALA’s immunity provisions.
The EALA is broadly written to encourage equine-related activities by limiting potential civil liability from claims by “participants” who “engage in an equine activity.” Under the EALA, to “engage in an equine activity” means: “riding, training, driving, breeding, being a passenger upon…whether mounted or unmounted. Engage in an equine activity includes visiting, touring, or utilizing an equine facility as part of an organized event or activity including the breeding of equines…” The statute further defines “equine activity” as including “a ride, trip, hunt, or other activity, however informal or impromptu, that is sponsored by an equine activity sponsor.” It also states that “inherent risk of an equine activity” is “a danger or condition that is an integral part of an equine activity, including, but not limited to…(i) An equine’s propensity to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm, or death to a person on or around it; (ii) The unpredictability of an equine’s reaction to things such as sounds, sudden movement, and people, other animals, or unfamiliar objects.” The EALA contains several exceptions to immunity, such as the negligent provision of faulty equipment or an act or omission that constitutes a willful disregard for the safety of the participant.
Plaintiff responded that, because she was not a passenger “upon” a horse, she was not engaged in equine activity under the Act and the EALA offered no protection to the defendants in this case and does not prevent claims from passengers of horse-drawn carriages.
The trial court disagreed with Goch’s narrow interpretation of the statute and granted summary judgment to the defendants, determining that the bolting horse was not caused by any act of the driver and Goch was a “participant” in equine activity who was prohibited from suing by the Act. Upon appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals relied on the statute’s plain language and legislative history to uphold that conclusion.
While being a passenger “upon” a horse is one way to qualify as a participant “engaging in equine activity” under the EALA, the statute contains a “broad” list of equine activities that qualify, the court noted. It includes riding, training, driving, breeding and providing or assisting in veterinary treatment as qualifying activities. It also specifies that a participant can be unmounted. But what about a passenger on a horse-drawn carriage? The court’s analysis focused on the word “drive,” using its plain meaning definition found in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed) to determine a journey in a carriage qualifies as “driving” (which is a form of participation in an equine activity under the EALA).
The court further evaluated legislative history to conclude that the intent of the statute was to offer liability protection for a broad range of activities, including carriage rides. Relying on precedent, the court found the Legislature “obviously recogniz[ed] and anticipat[ed] that in an environment involving equines, potential liability could arise out of innumerable situations, including instances where… the participant, before the incident or accident, had no direct or meaningful interaction with the particular equine that caused the injury.” This broad intent, in the court’s view, covered liability arising from carriage rides.
Despite the adverse ruling – and the appellate court’s subsequent refusal to reconsider its ruling – Plaintiff may still try to petition the Michigan Supreme Court to take up an appeal and possibly weigh in on the scope of immunity under the EALA. Stay tuned for the final ride to see who emerges as the ultimate winner.
