Facts

Decedent Mia Eriksson was an experienced horse-rider who owned a horse named Kory. Eriksson rode Kory in equestrian eventing competitions for some years. These events included dressage, cross-country, and show jumping.

On Nov. 4, 2006, Eriksson competed in the 2006 Galway Downs Three-Day Eventing Competition, sanctioned by the United States Equestrian Federation and United States Eventing Association. Eriksson qualified to continue in the eventing competition by her score in the first-day dressage competition. Eriksson then began to compete in the cross-country portion of the event, which involved jumping fences and other obstacles, after having walked the course for over an hour and practiced on her horse in the warm-up arena beforehand. After riding for several minutes on the course, including incurring four "stops" or failed jumps, which technically eliminated her from the competition, Eriksson continued to Fence 19. She failed to adequately clear the jump with her horse, which caused her to be separated from her horse in the air and to land on the ground with the horse falling on top of her. She died almost immediately from the trauma of the fall.

The decedent and her horse had failed to clear a jump in a similar eventing competition 10 days earlier, at Ram Trap, which resulted in an abrasion to the horse's nose and a bruise to his chest. However, the veterinarian that examined the horse cleared the horse to compete in the following event, but recommended observation for any residual ill effects at the time of Galway Downs.

Defendant Kristi Nunnink was the decedent's riding coach. The other defendants were, in various ways, involved in the presentation of the Galway Downs three-day event.

The plaintiffs owned a large horse riding, boarding, and teaching facility called Tahoe Meadows, and were very familiar with eventing competitions. They had lost an elder daughter a couple of years earlier to a horse-riding accident at the University of California at Fresno.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that defendant Nunnink had used her influence, as Eriksson's coach, to convince plaintiffs to allow their minor daughter to compete at Galway Downs. Nunnink did so despite knowing that decedent's horse was not yet recovered from its Ram Tap injuries, thereby increasing the risks inherent in the sport of eventing, and committing negligence.

The plaintiffs further contended that the release/waiver in favor of Kristi Nunnink signed by Mia and Karan Eriksson was legally deficient and could not preclude the instant lawsuit. The plaintiffs also contended that the other defendants had negligently allowed Mia Eriksson to ride in the eventing competition, had failed to take her off the course after she had missed four jumps, and had been negligent in their ownership, management, installation, and design of the subject cross-country course.

The plaintiffs alleged that those latter defendants had negligently set the height and other configurations of the jumps, and particularly leading up to and including Fence 19, in such a way as to make them unreasonably dangerous, increasing the risks inherent in the sport of eventing and taking this incident out of the ambit of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine.

The plaintiffs also contended that the release/waiver signed by decedent and her plaintiff mother was legally defective and did not preclude recovery from this incident.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended that this case fits squarely within the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, and that the releases/waivers that plaintiff had signed affected waivers of their rights to sue defendants for the death of decedent.

The defendants also contended that there was no competent evidence that the decedent's horse was injured at the time it ran at Galway Downs, that there was no evidence that any such injury caused the horse to unsafely negotiate the Fence 19 jump, and thus no evidence of legal causation necessary for negligence or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The defendants further contended that the "open and obvious condition" doctrine precluded this lawsuit by negating the duty element in negligence.

Injuries

The plaintiffs alleged that they suffered extreme emotional distress, grief, and loss of society of their 17-year-old daughter, at more than $1 million, and that they incurred monetary expenses from the funeral and burial.

Result

On May 22, 2009, the court granted summary judgment for all defendants except Kristi Nunnink. On June 26, 2009, the court granted summary judgment for Kristi Nunnink after a second hearing, finding that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine precluded this lawsuit. The court also found that, with respect to Kristi Nunnink, there was no evidence of legal causation, and that, as to the other defendants, the express waiver signed by decedent and her plaintiff mother precluded the lawsuit, based on the express assumption of the risk doctrine.

Other Information

FILING DATE: May 6, 2008.