Home » Posts tagged 'Personal Injury'
Tag Archives: Personal Injury
Year after year, no matter where we went for vacation, we always seemed to drive by a ranch offering trail rides. Finally, after many years of declining such requests, my wife finally convinced me to give it a try. We were vacationing in the Adirondacks and I owed it to my wife to finally give horseback riding a try.
Earlier in the week, I went overboard with the mountains we climbed–choosing in mid-hike to add another nearby mountain to our trek before returning to the car. Suffice it to say, this made it easier for my wife to convince me to finally go on my first trail ride.
While the trail ride proved to be a fun experience (and I’ve been riding a few times since then), I was pretty nervous about being that high up on unfamiliar trails. I also remember the guide giving us a short pre-ride lesson, and while he was sitting on his horse, it stepped back and tripped on the small step ladder he used to get on the horse. This only served to heighten my anxiety, as I already had Christopher Reeve on my mind, and now I watched our guide nearly fall off his horse. But we made it without any other mishaps.
By now, you’re probably thinking, “What does this story have to do with the injured horseback rider you mentioned earlier?” I am pretty sure that the ranch where I first rode was the Emerald Springs Ranch in Saranac Lake (how many other ranches could there be in Saranac Lake?). So when I saw a case about an injured horseback rider suing the Emerald Springs Ranch I knew I had to write about it.
In Vanderbrook v. Emerald Springs Ranch, 109 A.D.3d 1113, 971 N.Y.S.2d 754 (4th Dep’t 2013), the horseback rider sued the Ranch, seeking damages for personal injuries she sustained while riding a horse on a guided trail ride at the Ranch. During the ride, the horse brushed up against a tree, plaintiff was unable to push away from the tree, and the tree caught plaintiff’s leg, allegedly injuring her leg and hip.
The Ranch moved for summary judgment, asking the trial court to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law because, according to the defendant, the plaintiff could not establish either (1) the horse’s “vicious propensity” or (2) that the Ranch was aware of such “vicious propensity.” How could a horse have a vicious propensity? Should be pretty easy, right?
Not exactly. As the court noted, “It is well settled that the owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known of that animal’s vicious propensities will be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities.” [Vanderbrook, 109 A.D.3d at __, 971 N.Y.S.2d at 755 (internal quotations omitted)]. “[A]n animal that behaves in a manner that would not necessarily be considered dangerous or ferocious, but nevertheless reflects a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm, can be found to have vicious propensities–albeit only when such proclivity results in the injury giving rise to the lawsuit.” [Id. (internal quotations omitted)].
In an effort to convince the court that the complaint should be dismissed, the Ranch submitted proof establishing that the rider herself testified that she was in fact instructed by Ranch personnel to push off the trees if the horse walked too closely to the trees on the single-track trail. The Ranch bolstered this proof with the transcript of the Ranch owner’s deposition, in which she also stated that she told her guides to instruct riders to push off the trees of the horses rode too closely to them. The Ranch obviously thought this proof would support its arguments. But the court instead found that this proof instead illustrated a question of fact to be determined at trial as to whether the Ranch knew of the horse’s propensity to walk too closely to the trees, which was the behavior that allegedly caused the rider’s injury.
The court also ruled that the Ranch failed to establish as a matter of law that the rider assumed the risk of horseback riding. “Assumption of the risk” is a defense often successfully asserted in recreational injury cases. However, as the court noted here, “Horseback riding participants will not be deemed to have assumed unreasonably increased risks.” [Id. (internal quotations omitted)]. According to the court, the Ranch’s evidence again raised questions of fact as to whether the Ranch unreasonably increased the risks of horseback riding by using a bitless bridle on their horses, which allegedly failed to provide plaintiff with the ability to control the horse, and by failing to give the plaintiff, who was a novice rider, adequate instruction on how to control the horse. When looking at the pictures of my first ride, I noticed that the bridle on my horse also appeared to be bitless.
Finally, the Ranch also sought dismissal of the complaint based on the waiver of liability that the rider signed before the ride. The court ruled that the Ranch failed to establish any entitlement to dismissal on this ground as well, finding that the release here was void as against public policy based upon General Obligations Law section 5-326. Although it is a common practice to ask participants to sign waivers like this before engaging in certain recreational activities, many (but not all) of these releases have been rendered void by this provision of the General Obligations Law. The issues presented by such releases are beyond the scope of this post, and I plan to write about that in a future post.
So what happens next? In all likelihood, the case will be scheduled for a trial. Although the injured rider survived the Ranch’s motion for summary judgment, this only means that she was able to convince the judge that factual issues exist, warranting a trial. Absent a settlement of the claim, she now must convince a jury that she is entitled to recover.
I just took the dog out, and discovered that it is snowing! Is it really that time of year already? I still have some leaves to rake. I guess I’ll have to put the rake away and get the shovel out.
Earlier today, I was reviewing recent decisions from the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, and I came across a case that I thought would be the good subject for a post coinciding with the first snowfall. I just didn’t think I’d be writing this post today!
The case of Glover v. Botsford, 108 A.D.3d 1182 (4th Dep’t 2013), was brought by a woman seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell on snow or ice on the sidewalk in front of a store owned by one of the defendants and operated by another within the City of Rochester. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent because they either created the dangerous condition outside of their store or failed to remedy the condition despite actual or constructive notice of it. Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the complaint. The defendants alleged that they had no duty to remove the snow and ice from the sidewalk because there was a storm in progress at the time of the accident. However, Justice Polito denied the motion, having determined that there was an issue of fact as to whether the defendants “properly maintained the dangerous, slippery condition by removing the snow, but not salting or removing the ice, as alleged.”
The Appellate Division reversed, based primarily on the affidavit of defendants’ expert meteorologist, and the weather reports upon which that expert relied. According to the court, this evidence established as a matter of law that there was a storm in progress at the time of the accident.
In opposition to the motion, plaintiff relied exclusively on an affirmation from her attorney, “who asserted, based on an inaccurate reading of the weather reports submitted by defendant that it was not clear whether it had been snowing at the time of the accident.” Parenthetically, I note that earlier today I read a post on the American Bar Association website, discussing a case by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, who heavily criticized attorneys for being “afraid of math” and the sciences, and one wonders if this case provides further evidence in support of Judge Posner’s argument?
In any event, the Fourth Department noted that:
Even assuming, arguendo, that it was not snowing heavily at the time of the accident, we note that the ‘storm in progress doctrine is not limited to situations where blizzard conditions exist; it also applies in situations where there is some type of less severe, yet still inclement, winter weather.’
The court also noted that the plaintiff failed to establish that there was any sort of “lull” or “break” in the storm such that the defendants would have had a reasonable amount of time to abate the slippery conditions.
The court also held that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendants created the dangerous condition or whether their snow removal efforts made the condition worse. The court noted both that:
- The mere failure to remove all snow and ice does not constitute negligence and does not constitute creation of a hazard; and
- The failure to salt or sand a sidewalk does not constitute an exacerbation of a dangerous condition.
Cases like this can be challenging, and not every accident is the result of someone else’s negligence. However, if you or a loved one are seriously injured and have questions about whether or not a claim exists, feel free to contact me. Since its founding in 1979, our firm has represented many clients who were seriously injured by the negligence or wrongful conduct of others. We would be happy to help you.