Q: Is horse tack covered by my liability
release?
A: Generally, no.
California being one of the
few states without specific Equestrian Activity Legislation
must rely on good old-fashioned assumption of the risk
doctrine. Many equine professionals rely too heavily
on the “protection” afforded them under this
doctrine, to their detriment. The assumption of the risk
does not provide protection from any and all injuries
that may arise during a participant’s involvement
with an equestrian activity.
Many commercial providers of horseback riding, training
or renting will often have patrons sign a liability release
believing that they are then wholly protected from potential
litigation should any injury occur.
That is not the case.
A general liability release, when properly signed, typically
insulates the professional from claims arising from injuries
that flow from the inherent risks associated with horseback
riding.
In sports-related activities, the courts have determined
that three basic ideas need to be addressed when deciding
what duty was owed to a patron.
¹
1. What is the fundamental nature of the sport (horseback
riding) and what inherent risks might be associated with
said the sport?
Inherent risks can generally be categorized as falling
from a horse, being bitten, kicked or thrown from a horse
just to mention a few. An inherent risk is a risk that
might naturally occur due to the nature of the sport. Horseback
riding always carries an inherent risk that the animal
may not behave in a safe and calm manner, thereby resulting
in an injury.
2. What is your duty (to your customer) within the context
of the sport?
²
The court has held that commercial operators of sports
and recreational facilities owe a duty of care to their
patrons. In broad terms, this means you as the commercial
provider have a duty to ensure the facilities and related
services, which are provided, do not increase the risk
of injury beyond the inherent risks associated with the
sport.
3. What is your duty to protect your customer from
the particular risk of harm?
You certainly have a duty to make sure the sport does
not become more dangerous by providing faulty equipment.
A whole list of duties can be attached to professionals
within the equestrian community, ie, not to provide faulty
saddles, bridles and other equipment.
³
Arguably, being on the receiving end of a broken saddle
is not a risk a rider would choose to assume.
A few ways to prevent litigation is to make sure your
clientele is receiving safe equipment.
1. Establish a protocol for checking saddles, cinches,
bridles, helmets and all the other goodies that you provide
to your clientele for horseback riding. Make sure the protocol
is followed by everyone who handles your tack.
2. Replace all helmets according to the guidelines of
the AMEA/SRF. It is recommended that a helmet that has
sustained any impact should be replaced immediately even
if there is no visible damage.
3. Immediately prior to riding, check the tack to make
sure it has been placed and fitted on the horse correctly.
Make sure all staff (trainers, volunteers, anyone working
for you in any capacity) know how to check tack on a fully
saddled horse and spot potential problems. *Remember your
client probably does not have a clue.
Equine professionals should include a carefully
worded paragraph in their release that expressly warns
about the potential injuries or problems that could occur
if the horse equipment fails during your client’s ride.
An express disclosure of potential injuries that may arise
from faulty tack may protect you from potential liability.
Let’s face it, most people in the general public
who hire horse professionals have little experience with
horse equipment and how it should operate. Most people
do recognize that they may fall from the horse during their
ride. However, people do not expect to hit the ground with
their saddle still under them. Protect yourself to the
best of your ability with excellent paperwork.
References:
1. Knight v.
Jewett (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 296
2. Harrold v. Rolling “J” Ranch (1993)
19 Cal. App. 4th 578
3. Harrold v. Rolling “J” Ranch (1993)
19 Cal. App. 4th 578