Germer v. Churchill Downs Mgmt.
Decision Date | 13 July 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 3D14-2695,3D14-2695 |
Parties | Patrick Germer, Appellant, v. The Churchill Downs Management, etc., et al., Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge.
Lindsey M. Tenberg, P.A., and Lindsey M. Tenberg (Lighthouse Point), for appellant.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, and James H. Wyman, for appellees.
Before SHEPHERD, LAGOA and SCALES, JJ.
Appellant, plaintiff below, Patrick Germer appeals a summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Appellees, defendants below, Pinecrest Stables, Inc., Parsons Pinecrest Farm, Inc., Santa Cruz Ranch, Inc., and Juan Pedro Rizo Patron (collectively "Defendants"). We affirm because Florida's Equine Activities Liability Act (the "Act") immunizes Defendants for the injuries occasioned by a horse biting Germer while Germer was engaged in an equine activity.
On September 26, 2012, Germer, a former licensed jockey, and his roommate Tomislav Zivanovich decided to visit the Santa Cruz Ranch in Ocala, Florida to see Zivanovich's horse. Because Germer's jockey license had expired, Germer was required to obtain a guest pass in order to enter the stables. While Germer was en route through the barn to see Zivanovich's horse, another horse named Forever Happy jumped out of his stall and bit Germer's chest.
Approximately a year and a half later on December 27, 2013, Germer filed suit against the owners of the stables and the owner of Forever Happy, alleging that Defendants were negligent in allowing Forever Happy to bite Germer. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the Act, codified in chapter 773 of the Florida Statutes, immunized Defendants from any liability to Germer. Defendants' motion asserted that Germer was a "participant engaged in an equineactivity" and, therefore, pursuant to section 773.02 of the Florida Statutes, was statutorily precluded from recovering damages. After conducting a hearing, the trial court held that the Act immunized Defendants, and entered a final summary judgment in favor of Defendants from which Germer takes this timely appeal.
The operative immunity provision of the Act is codified in section 773.02 of the Florida Statutes, which reads, in relevant part, as follows:
§ 773.01(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). (emphasis added)
The critical, indeed dispositive, issue in this case is whether Germer was "visiting an equine facility as part of an organized event or activity" when he was bitten by Forever Happy. If, as Defendants argue and as the trial court held, Germer was engaged in such an organized event or activity, then Germer was a "participant engaged in an equine activity" and Defendants are statutorily immunized from Germer's claim for personal injuries. § 773.02, Fla. Stat. (2012).
Germer argues that his visit to the stables did not constitute an organized activity or event because Germer's decision to visit the stables with his roommate was made on the spur of the moment and was not coordinated with the stable owners prior to the visit. Defendants argue that Germer's visit was "organized" by Zivanovich, an owner of a horse housed at the stables. Defendants further argue that the stable's requirement that all guests obtain a guest pass prior to entering the horse barn - combined with the statutorily required warning posted at the stable2 -constitutes the requisite "organization" so as to immunize Defendants from Germer's personal injury claims.
While the Legislature meticulously defined virtually every other operative term in section 773.02, the statute does not provide a definition for "organized event or activity." Therefore, we are called upon to construe the provision, consistent with the Act's legislative intent. Bautista v. State, 863 So. 2d 1180, 1185 (Fla. 2003).
In order to ascertain legislative intent, we look at the statutory scheme, as a whole, and interpret the specific provision consistent with the theme evidenced by its statutory structure. State v. Moreno-Gonzalez, 18 So. 3d 1180, 1182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) ( ).
Plainly, the Act's general intent is to limit the liability of Florida's equine facilities for injuries resulting from inherent risks associated with equine activities. To effectuate this intent, the Legislature broadly defined those activitiesconstituting an equine activity. Indeed, the Legislature carved out only one specific exception from this broad definition, i.e., spectators in an authorized area. § 773.01(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). See Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815, 817 (Fla. 1976) ( ). Thus, against this backdrop, we interpret the phrase "as part of an organized event or activity" consistent with the Legislature's...
To continue reading
Request your trial