AZAPP is a blog that provides a thorough, up-to-date, and efficient resource to stay abreast of significant developments concerning civil cases in Arizona's appellate courts - the two Divisions of the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court.
AZAPP Update (Subscribe)
Contributors
Archives
AZAPP Blog
<< View Current Articles
Friday, October 3, 2003
Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, LLC:Division One Upholds Equine Owner Immunity Statute, A.R.S. § 12-553, Against Challenge That It Violates the Anti-abrogation and Arizona's Equal Protection Clause, Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 13.
On October 2, 2003 Division One affirmed summary judgment in favor of a riding stable operator on the basis of A.R.S. § 12-553. Section 12-553 immunizes an equine owner from an ordinary negligence claim by a person riding the equine if: “1. The person has taken control of the equine from the owner or agent when the injury or death occurs; 2. The person ... has signed a release before taking control of the equine; 3. The owner or agent has properly installed suitable tack or equipment....; [and] 4. The owner or agent assigns the person to a suitable equine based on a reasonable interpretation of the person's representation of his skills, health and experience with and knowledge of equines.” The plaintiff had suffered injuries when she was thrown from a horse during a desert trail ride guided by the defendant, but had executed a pre-printed release before the ride. The court, per Judge Garbarino, rejected the plaintiff’s contention that issues of fact relating to the release’s execution precluded summary judgment because the statute “only requires that the rider sign a release before taking control of the equine.” The court also rejected an anti-abrogation challenge because § 12-553 did not “deny all injured equine riders the right to sue for ordinary negligence,” but rather only “those who have signed a release” and who otherwise satisfy the statute’s requirements. With respect to the equal protection challenge, the court reasoned that the statute treated all those in the relevant class, i.e., those who had signed releases, equally and thus applied the rational basis test. Finding that the statute furthered a legitimate state interest related to an increase in lawsuits against equine owners, the court held the statute does not violate the equal protection clause.
Judges Barker and Thompson joined the opinion.
On October 2, 2003 Division One affirmed summary judgment in favor of a riding stable operator on the basis of A.R.S. § 12-553. Section 12-553 immunizes an equine owner from an ordinary negligence claim by a person riding the equine if: “1. The person has taken control of the equine from the owner or agent when the injury or death occurs; 2. The person ... has signed a release before taking control of the equine; 3. The owner or agent has properly installed suitable tack or equipment....; [and] 4. The owner or agent assigns the person to a suitable equine based on a reasonable interpretation of the person's representation of his skills, health and experience with and knowledge of equines.” The plaintiff had suffered injuries when she was thrown from a horse during a desert trail ride guided by the defendant, but had executed a pre-printed release before the ride. The court, per Judge Garbarino, rejected the plaintiff’s contention that issues of fact relating to the release’s execution precluded summary judgment because the statute “only requires that the rider sign a release before taking control of the equine.” The court also rejected an anti-abrogation challenge because § 12-553 did not “deny all injured equine riders the right to sue for ordinary negligence,” but rather only “those who have signed a release” and who otherwise satisfy the statute’s requirements. With respect to the equal protection challenge, the court reasoned that the statute treated all those in the relevant class, i.e., those who had signed releases, equally and thus applied the rational basis test. Finding that the statute furthered a legitimate state interest related to an increase in lawsuits against equine owners, the court held the statute does not violate the equal protection clause.
Judges Barker and Thompson joined the opinion.
