Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd.

Decision Date25 August 2017
Docket NumberNo. 20160683,20160683
Citation423 P.3d 1150
Parties Lisa PENUNURI, and Barry Siegwart, Petitioners, v. SUNDANCE PARTNERS, LTD., Sundance Holdings, LLC, Robert Redford, Robert Redford 1970 Trust, and Rocky Mountain Outfitters, L.C., Respondents.
CourtUtah Supreme Court

Robert D. Strieper, Salt Lake City, for petitioners

H. Burt Ringwood, A. Joseph Sano, Salt Lake City, for respondents

Douglas B. Cannon, Salt Lake City, for amicus Utah Association for Justice

Chief Justice Durrant authored the opinion of the Court, in which Associate Chief Justice Lee, Justice Durham, Justice Himonas, and Justice Pearce joined.

On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals

Chief Justice Durrant, opinion of the Court:

Introduction

¶ 1 This case returns to us for a second round of certiorari review. In August 2007, Lisa Penunuri was injured when she fell off her horse during a guided horseback trail ride at Sundance Resort. She and her husband, Barry Siegwart,1 asserted claims for negligence and gross negligence against Rocky Mountain Outfitters, L.C.—the company that provided the trail guide services—as well as various defendants associated with the resort (collectively, Sundance). In 2013, we affirmed the dismissal of Ms. Penunuri's ordinary negligence claims, leaving only her claims for gross negligence.2 Now her gross negligence claims have met a similar fate. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sundance and awarded Sundance its costs, including certain deposition costs.

¶ 2 Ms. Penunuri appealed and the court of appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment.3 We granted certiorari on three questions: (1) whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that summary judgment may be granted on a gross negligence claim even though the standard of care is not "fixed by law," (2) whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the district court's conclusion that reasonable minds could only conclude there was no gross negligence under the circumstances of this case, and (3) whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the district court's award of deposition costs to Sundance. We affirm the court of appeals on each issue.

¶ 3 As to the first of these issues, we recognize and clarify some potential inconsistency in our caselaw. In Berry v. Greater Park City Co., we stated that summary judgment dismissing a gross negligence claim is improper unless (1) the standard of care is " ‘fixed by law,’ and [ (2) ] reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion as to the defendant's negligence under the circumstances."4 We conclude, upon review, that the first prong of this standard—the requirement that the standard of care be "fixed by law"—is incompatible with rule 56 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. We accordingly repudiate this requirement and clarify that it is no longer an independent prerequisite to the grant of summary judgment dismissing a gross negligence claim. Summary judgment is appropriate where reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion regarding the defendant's gross negligence under the circumstances, whether or not the standard of care is fixed by law.

¶ 4 We further conclude that the court of appeals correctly determined that reasonable minds could only conclude there was no gross negligence given the undisputed facts of this case. Finally, we affirm the court of appeals' conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding deposition costs to Sundance.

Background5

¶ 5 Ms. Penunuri and two of her friends took a guided horseback trail ride at Sundance Resort in August 2007. The ride was guided by Ashley Wright, an employee of Rocky Mountain Outfitters, L.C., the entity authorized to operate trail rides at Sundance. Also present on this ride was another woman, Kate Fort, and her eight-year-old daughter, Haley. Before participating in the ride, Ms. Penunuri signed a Horseback Riding Release (Release), which advised of the risks associated with horseback riding:

I, the undersigned, ... understand that horseback riding ... involve[s] SIGNIFICANT RISK OF SERIOUS PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE OR EVEN DEATH. The risks include NATURAL, MAN–MADE, ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND INHERENT RISKS, including changing weather, mud, rocks, variations in steepness, terrain, natural and man-made obstacles, equipment failure and the negligence of others. "Inherent risk" with regard to equine or livestock activities means those dangers or conditions which are an integral part of equine or livestock activities, which may include: (a) the propensity of the animal to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm, or death to persons on or around them; (b) the unpredictability of the animal's reaction to outside stimulation such as sounds, sudden movement, and unfamiliar objects, persons, or other animals; (c) collisions with other animals or objects; or (d) the potential of a participant to act in a negligent manner that may contribute to injury to the participant or others, such as failing to maintain control over the animal or not acting within his or her ability.

Sundance also posted signs warning of the inherent risks associated with horseback riding. These signs were located in the building where guests sign the Release and near the horse arena.

¶ 6 The group set out in the following order: the guide in front, followed by Haley, Kate, Ms. Penunuri, and then her two friends. About 45 minutes into the ride, they reached a meadow and rearranged the order of riders. The guide stayed in the lead, but she was now followed by Ms. Penunuri's friends, then Kate, then Haley, and finally Ms. Penunuri bringing up the rear. The guide testified that, in an effort to keep the group together, she had been "slowing down the whole ride."6

¶ 7 Although the guide instructed the riders on how to keep the horses from grazing, Ms. Penunuri and eight-year-old Haley experienced difficulty keeping their horses from doing so, which caused them to lag behind the train of riders. The guide then informed the group that they would be stopping at a clearing in 100 feet so she could go back and take the reins of Haley's horse the rest of the way. As the guide was in the process of turning around to go back to Haley's horse, Ms. Penunuri fell off the back of her horse and was injured.

¶ 8 Ms. Penunuri and her husband, Barry Siegwart, asserted claims against Sundance for ordinary and gross negligence. The district court dismissed the ordinary negligence claims on the basis that Ms. Penunuri had released Sundance from liability for ordinary negligence, a result that was affirmed on appeal and certiorari.7 On remand, Sundance filed two motions for summary judgment on the gross negligence claim. In the first, it argued there was insufficient evidence to permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude (1) that Sundance was grossly negligent, or (2) that Sundance's gross negligence caused Ms. Penunuri's injuries. In the second motion, Sundance argued that Ms. Penunuri's expert witness lacked the qualifications necessary to provide expert testimony on the standard of care, and that without that testimony Ms. Penunuri lacked sufficient evidence of gross negligence to take her case to the jury.

¶ 9 The district court agreed on all counts. It ruled that no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the guide had shown "conscious disregard of, or indifference to" the safety of her riders. The court also concluded that Ms. Penunuri presented "no evidence beyond speculation concerning causation." It further concluded that, under rule 702 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, Ms. Penunuri's expert witness was unqualified to render expert opinion testimony on the standard of care, so summary judgment was proper on this alternative ground as well. Because Sundance prevailed on summary judgment, the district court awarded Sundance the costs associated with its deposing Ms. Penunuri, her expert, and two of the other riders, on the basis that the depositions were used in Sundance's summary judgment motion and were "necessary" to the development of the case.

¶ 10 The court of appeals affirmed. In so doing, it concluded that the following rule from our caselaw is best interpreted as a disjunctive test: "[S]ummary judgment is inappropriate unless the applicable standard of care is ‘fixed by law,’ and reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion as to the defendant's negligence under the circumstances."8 The court of appeals then went on to assess whether reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion as to the defendant's gross negligence in this case, without regard to whether the standard of care for guided horseback trail rides has been "fixed by law."9 It agreed with the district court that reasonable minds could only conclude there was no gross negligence on these facts.10 Finally, it affirmed the district court's decision to award deposition costs to Sundance.11

¶ 11 Ms. Penunuri petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which we granted. We have jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78A-3-102(3)(a).

Standard of Review

¶ 12 "When reviewing a case on certiorari, we review the court of appeals' decision for correctness. ‘The correctness of the court of appeals' decision turns on whether that court correctly reviewed the [district] court's decision under the appropriate standard of review.’ "12 We address three issues in this case.

¶ 13 First, we must decide whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that the standard stated in Berry v. Greater Park City Co.13 permits summary judgment solely on the ground that reasonable minds could not find for the plaintiff on a gross negligence claim, even where the standard of care is not fixed by law. The proper interpretation of our caselaw presents a question of law that an appellate court reviews for correctness.14

¶ 14 The second issue is whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the district court's conclusion that reasonable minds would necessarily conclude that there was no gross negligence under the circumstances...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Rutherford v. Talisker Canyons Fin., Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • June 27, 2019
    ...our commitment to Clover in White v. Deseelhorst , 879 P.2d 1371 (Utah 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd. , 2017 UT 54, 423 P.3d 1150. Today, Talisker asks us to abandon our holding in Clover and turn turtle three decades of precedent and the settled ex......
  • Copeland v. Healthsouth/Methodist Rehab. Hosp., LP
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • December 20, 2018
    ...whether the public interest prong of Utah’s two-part test has been met), abrogated in part on other grounds by Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd. , 423 P.3d 1150 (Utah 2017).17 See Plant v. Wilbur , 345 Ark. 487, 47 S.W.3d 889, 893–94 (2001) (three factors: public interest considerations; ......
  • Ipsen v. Diamond Tree Experts, Inc.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • May 20, 2020
    ...(quoting Robinson Ins. & Real Estate, Inc. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co. , 366 F. Supp. 307, 311 (W.D. Ark. 1973) ); see also Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd. , 2017 UT 54, ¶ 35, 423 P.3d 1150. And intentional tortious conduct goes even beyond that. Atkin Wright & Miles , 709 P.2d at 335 ; see al......
  • Jensen v. Cannon
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • August 27, 2020
    ...viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd. , 2017 UT 54, ¶ 14, 423 P.3d 1150 (cleaned up). And we review a district court's "interpretation of a rule of civil procedure for correctn......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT