|
No. 139438
| Trina Lee Beattie, |
|
Otis M. Underwood, Jr. |
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Lapeer - Holowka, N.) |
|
|
| Mark P. Mickalich, |
|
Richard H. Ebbott |
Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| ______________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Michigan Association for Justice's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Horse Council's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Trina Beattie was holding the lead rope of a horse named Whiskey belonging to Mark Mickalich when the horse reared up; Beattie fell, injuring her arm and shoulder. Beattie sued Mickalich, alleging that he was negligent in failing to secure the horse. According to Beattie, Mickalich invited her to his riding arena and asked Beattie to hold Whiskey’s lead rope while he fetched a saddle and other tack; Mickalich did not tie Whiskey to crossties before handing her the lead rope, Beattie said. Mickalich told a different version of events in discovery; he claimed that Beattie wanted to ride Whiskey and that he refused, but that they went to the pasture to see the horse. Mickalich testified that he never surrendered control of the lead, and that Whiskey reared when Beattie grabbed his halter. Mickalich also denied going to get a saddle, and said that Whiskey was not led into the riding arena.
Mickalich moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that §3 of the Equine Activity Liability Act barred Beattie’s claim. Section 3 protects “an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or another person” from liability “for an injury to or the death of a participant or property damage resulting from an inherent risk of an equine activity.” The act defines “inherent risk of an equine activity” as “a danger or condition that is an integral part of an equine activity,” such as an equine’s propensity to behave in certain ways and react in unpredictable ways “to things.” MCL 691.1662(f). But there are exceptions to this limitation on liability; the act does not prohibit a claim if the defendant “[p]rovides an equine and fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity,” or if the defendant “[c]ommits a negligent act or omission that constitutes a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage.” MCL 691.1665. Beattie argued to the trial court that she had produced sufficient evidence to support her claim under these two statutory exceptions to the immunity granted by the act. She also provided the court with a letter from Timothy Wright at Waverly Farms in Oxford, Michigan. Wright wrote that horses can be unpredictable and, because of their size, dangerous to those around them. He offered his opinion that Whiskey “should have been secured to crossties at a very minimum” before others entered the arena and that any movements around the horse should have been slow and deliberate, with care taken to observe the horse for any indication of its discomfort.
The trial court granted Mickalich’s motion for summary disposition, ruling that Beattie’s claim was barred by the Equine Activity Liability Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion per curiam. The panel explained: “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it is plain that plaintiff was engaged in inherently risky equine activity. Defendant invited plaintiff to his property so that she could ride Whiskey. Although plaintiff did not mount or ride Whiskey, she held Whiskey’s halter and lead rope while defendant attempted to saddle the horse. When defendant hoisted the saddle into the air, the horse got spooked and reared up on its hind legs, resulting in an injury to plaintiff. This is exactly the type of risk that is integral to any equine activity.” The appellate panel rejected Beattie’s argument that she produced evidence sufficient to establish a statutory exception to the bar on liability. Beattie’s failure to plead either exception in her complaint was “fatal” to her claim, and the evidence did not support any exception to the bar on liability, the Court of Appeals said. The court also ruled that the letter from Timothy Wright was inadmissible under the Michigan Rules of Evidence and could not be considered in ruling on Mickalich’s motion. Beattie appeals.
Top of Page
|
