A California state appeals court has affirmed the ruling of a trial court that a release signed by a 17-year-old equestrian acted as a shield from liability for her riding coach, who was sued by the equestrian’s parents for wrongful death/negligence and bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress.
To invalidate the release, the parents would have had to demonstrate that the coach “acted with gross negligence.”
In 2006, Mia Eriksson was a 17-year-old equestrian eventing competitor and the daughter of the plaintiffs and appellants, Karan and Stan Eriksson. The defendant and respondent, Kristi Nunnink, was Mia’s riding coach.
In November 2006, Mia’s horse tripped over a jump during the cross-country portion of an event at Galway Downs in Temecula. With the Erikssons looking on, Mia fell off her horse and the horse fell on Mia, causing her death.
The Erikssons sued Nunnink for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). The Erikssons alleged that Nunnink substantially increased the risk for Mia by allowing Mia to ride a horse that “was unfit to ride because of prior falls and lack of practice.” The Erikssons alleged that the coach concealed the horse’s inadequacies from them.
In ruling for Nunnink, the trial court relied, in part, on a release of liability entered into between Nunnink and Mia about six months prior to Mia’s death.
The Erikssons appealed, arguing that the release is ambiguous and does not apply to their claims.
In considering the underlying facts, the appeals court noted that Nunnink is a professional rider and eventing coach, who has coached about 80 riders over 25 years. The Erikssons hired Nunnink to be Mia’s eventing coach in 2001. In 2005 and 2006, Nunnink had two or three coaching sessions with Mia each week.
In May 2006, Mia and Nunnink entered into a release of liability agreement in which Mia agreed to release Nunnink from all liability except for damages caused by Nunnink’s “direct, willful and wanton negligence.”
The majority controversy in the case centered on the horse named Kory, who had suffered multiple injuries in previous events. In fact, all parties had agreed that Mia would not ride Kory that fateful day. After the horse appeared to demonstrate that he could make the jumps, the parties agreed that Mia would go ahead and ride him.
After the competition began, the horse “refused” to make the required jumps. Mia, however, continued and tasked the horse with making the jump, leading to the accident.
One of the key questions for the trial court was whether the coach had done enough to dissuade Mia and her family from continuing on with the horse.
The Erikssons claimed the death occurred because of Nunnink’s “negligence and fault.” Nunnink countered with a defense of assumption of the risk and reliance on the release.
The appeals court agreed with the trial court that Nunnink “has established the validity of the release in the sense that it was binding and enforceable against Mia, except insofar as it would protect Nunnink from future liability arising from her gross negligence. If, as here, the validity of the release is established and yet Nunnink can still be liable if she acted with gross negligence, this question arises: Is it Nunnink’s burden, as part of proving her defense, to prove she did not act with gross negligence (thus bringing her conduct within the scope of the release), or is it the Erikssons’ burden to establish that Nunnink was grossly negligent (thus taking her conduct outside the scope of the release) in order to prove the elements of their case? The answer, we conclude, is that once Nunnink proves the validity of the release and its applicability to this case, the Erikssons have the burden of establishing that Nunnink was grossly negligent.”
The Erickssons lost an older daughter, Shana, 18, in 2003, when was thrown from her horse at Cal State Fresno, where she was on the equestrian team. The couple unsuccessfully sued the university in that instance as well.
Karan Eriksson et al. v. Kristi Nunnink; Ct. App. Calif., 4th App. Dist., Div. 2; E057158, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 65; 1/27/15
Attorneys of Record: (for Plaintiffs and Appellants) Butler & Dodge and Terrence L. Butler. (for Defendant and Respondent) Soltman, Levitt, Flaherty & Wattles and Garth M. Drozin.
