Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P and others were riding horses in an area north of Reno. Jody White (D1) was a member of the group and was riding a horse owned by D named 'Bum.' D and D1 were specifically involved in the training of dogs, and the other riders were at the event as observers. The ride was purely recreational, and none of the participants obtained any compensation or commercial gain from the activity. Bum was acting antsy and nervous and had been threatening to kick other horses that ventured into his proximity. Bum had been recently gelded. P was injured when the horse she was riding strayed too close to Bum. Bum turned and kicked at P's horse, striking P in the leg. P sued Ds alleging that D1 was negligent in continuing to ride a horse that was temperamental and exhibiting dangerous behavior and that D was negligent for supplying D1 with a horse D knew was aggressive and anxious. Ds moved for summary judgment. They alleged that in accordance with recent California case law, the appropriate legal standard of care governing participants in recreational activities was not simple negligence, but was instead reckless or intentional conduct. P's case was dismissed. The court adopted the California standard and reasoned that P 'had not alleged or presented any evidence that defendants intentionally tried to hurt plaintiff or that defendants engaged in conduct which was so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary activities involved in the horseback riding and dog training sport.' P appealed: The district court erred by adopting a reckless or intentional standard of care because such a reduced standard affronts Nevada's abolition of implied assumption of risk.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co