Rosales v. Benjamin Equestrian Ctr., LLC, WD 82485

Citation597 S.W.3d 669
Decision Date26 November 2019
Docket NumberWD 82485
Parties Heather ROSALES, Respondent, v. BENJAMIN EQUESTRIAN CENTER, LLC, Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Leah M. Mason, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.

Kevin Weakley and Robyn M. Butler, Lee's Summit, MO, for appellant.

Before Division One: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge and Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

Benjamin Equestrian Center, LLC ("Benjamin") appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial that awarded Heather Rosales ("Rosales") damages for injuries sustained by Rosales while she attended an event at Benjamin's horserace track. Benjamin argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV"); in excluding evidence showing Benjamin's compliance with provisions of section 537.325 of the Equine Activities Liability Act1 ("the Act"); in admitting evidence offered by an expert witness; in admitting evidence in support of an unpled affirmative avoidance; in denying Benjamin's motion for a new trial because the verdict was against the weight of evidence; and for cumulative error. Finding no error, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background2

On July 5, 2015, Rosales attended a horse-racing event held at Benjamin's racetrack in Belton. Rosales's family accompanied her. Rosales had never been to a horserace and had no experience with horses. Upon arriving to the racetrack, Rosales accompanied a family friend into an area where racehorses were being unloaded from trailers in preparation for the racing events. Rosales entered the unloading area through an unmonitored open gate. Security personnel did not monitor the unloading area to ensure that spectators were cleared from the area. Aerial photographs show that the racetrack is a straight track, located in a large field or open area, with few permanent fixtures or infrastructure. Gravel lots for vehicle parking are located immediately adjacent to the straight track on one side, and the unloading area for horses is located immediately adjacent to the straight track on the opposite side.

Rosales sat a short distance away from where horses were being unloaded. Rosales and the family friend she was with were asked to move by a horse handler while a horse was being unloaded. The horse was unloaded and was in the process of being brushed when it reared up and fell on Rosales, fracturing her pelvis.

Rosales filed suit against Benjamin on a theory of negligence. At trial, the jury found in favor of Rosales, and awarded damages in the amount of $350,000. The jury apportioned fault between Benjamin and Rosales, finding Benjamin to be eighty percent at fault and Rosales to be twenty percent at fault. The trial court entered judgment consistent with the jury's verdict and awarded Rosales damages in the amount of $280,000.

Benjamin filed this timely appeal. Other facts will be addressed where relevant in connection with our discussion of Benjamin's points on appeal.

Analysis

Benjamin asserts eight points on appeal challenging the trial court's denial of Benjamin's motion for directed verdict and JNOV; the trial court's exclusion and admission of evidence, including expert witness testimony; the trial court's denial of Benjamin's motion for a new trial; and the prejudicial effect of the trial court's cumulative error. Because of the centrality of section 537.325 to the issues presented by each point, we begin with a discussion of the statute.

Section 537.325

Section 537.325 provides a limited immunity defense to equine activity sponsors when participants engaged in an equine activity suffer injuries arising from the inherent risks of an equine activity. The Missouri legislature enacted section 537.325 in 1994.3 Missouri's equine activity liability statute codified the common law assumption of risk doctrine. Frank v. Mathews , 136 S.W.3d 196, 202 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) ("[T]he purpose of the Equine Liability Act is to codify the common law assumption of risk principle in the context of a specific recreational activity."). Unlike other state's equine activity liability statutes,4 the Missouri legislature contemplated a narrow shield of immunity for equine activity sponsors.

Section 537.325.1 sets out the definitions applicable for the statute. An "equine activity sponsor" includes a "partnership or corporation, whether operating or not operating for profit or nonprofit ... which sponsors, organizes or provides the facilities for, an equine activity...." Section 537.325.1(4). There are at least six different classifications of "equine activity" described in section 537.325, including (1) competitive shows, such as rodeos, steeple chasing, or trail riding; (2) training and teaching activities; (3) boarding activities; (4) riding, inspecting, evaluating an equine, regardless of whether remuneration is received by equine owner; (5) general rides, trips, hunts or other equine activities that are sponsored by an equine activity sponsor; and (6) farrier activities. Section 537.325.1(3)(a)-(f).

Section 537.235.2 provides that equine activity sponsors are immune from claims of injury to equine activity participants that arise out of the inherent risks of equine activities. Section 537.325.1(6) defines "inherent risks of equine ... activities" to mean "those dangers or conditions which are an integral part of equine ... activities." The definition provides a non-exclusive list of examples, which can be generally characterized as risks associated with innate animal behaviors that can to be expected during encounters with equine:

(a) The propensity of any equine ... to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm or death to persons on or around it;
(b) The unpredictability of any equine's ... reaction to such things as sounds, sudden movement and unfamiliar objects, persons or other animals;
(c) Certain hazards such as surface and subsurface conditions;
(d) Collisions with other equines, livestock, or objects;
(e) 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 ability[.]

Section 537.325.1(6)(a)-(e).

The immunity afforded to equine activity sponsors is not unlimited, however. Section 537.325.2 provides that:

Except as provided in subsection 4 of this section , an equine activity sponsor ... or any other person or corporation shall not be liable for an injury to ... a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine or livestock activities and, except as provided in subsection 4 of this section , no participant or a participant's representative shall make any claim against, maintain an action against, or recover from an equine activity sponsor ... from injury, loss, damage or death of the participant resulting from any of the inherent risks of equine ... activities.

Section 537.325.2 (emphasis added). The plain language of section 537.325.2 thus directs that even if all other requirements for immunity described in section 537.325.2 are met -- that the injured party was a participant engaged in equine activity and was injured by an inherent risk of that activity -- immunity for an equine activity sponsor is circumscribed by the exceptions enumerated in section 537.325.4.

Section 537.325.4 provides:

4. The provisions of subsection 2 of [section 537.325] shall not prevent or limit the liability of an equine activity sponsor ... if the equine activity sponsor[:]
(1) Provided the equipment or tack and knew or should have known that the equipment or tack was faulty and such equipment or tack was faulty to the extent that the equipment or tack caused the injury; or
(2) Provided the equine or livestock and failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity or livestock activity and determine the ability of the participant to safely manage the particular equine or livestock based on the participant's age, obvious physical condition or the participant's representations of his or her ability;
(3) Owns, leases, rents or otherwise is in lawful possession and control of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a dangerous latent condition which was known to the equine activity sponsor, equine professional, livestock activity sponsor, livestock owner, livestock facility, livestock auction market, any employee thereof, or person and for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted;
(4) Commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant and that act or omission caused the injury;
(5) Intentionally injures the participant;
(6) Fails to use the degree of care that an ordinarily careful and prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances.

(Emphasis added.) The exceptions described in section 537.325.4 plainly express the General Assembly's intent to narrow the shield of immunity available to equine activity sponsors so as to cover inherent risks of equine behavior, but not risks that are created or enhanced by an equine activity sponsor.

Central to this appeal is section 537.325.4(6), which articulates the standard of care for common law negligence. See Frank v. Mathews , 136 S.W.3d 196, 203 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) ("[Section 537.325.4(6) ] states the general standard of care in negligence cases, illustrat[ing] that the act was not intended to relieve sponsors ... from any duty that common law negligence principles impose upon them."). Although Benjamin argues that it is incongruent to except ordinary negligence from a statute that affords immunity because the effect of the exception is to swallow the immunity, we disagree. That seeming incongruence is readily explained. Section 537.325...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Rhoden v. Mo. Delta Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 2, 2021
    ...object at trial to the introduction of the evidence and reassert the objection in post-trial motions." Rosales v. Benjamin Equestrian Ctr., LLC , 597 S.W.3d 669, 686 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019)."To properly preserve a challenge to the admission of evidence, the objecting party must make a specific......
  • Wright v. Nash
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 31, 2022
    ..." (quoting KDW Staffing, LLC v. Grove Constr., LLC , 584 S.W.3d 833, 837 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) )); Rosales v. Benjamin Equestrian Ctr., LLC , 597 S.W.3d 669, 686 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) ("To preserve for appellate review an error regarding the admission of evidence, a timely objection must be m......
  • Wright v. Nash
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 31, 2022
    ......App. W.D. 2019))); Rosales v. Benjamin Equestrian Ctr., LLC ,. 597 S.W.3d 669, 686 (Mo. App. ......
  • Steinbach v. Maxion Wheels Sedalia LLC
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 2, 2021
    ...is an affirmative avoidance). "An avoidance is ‘an affirmative defense to an affirmative defense.’ " Rosales v. Benjamin Equestrian Ctr., LLC , 597 S.W.3d 669, 683 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Allen v. Titan Propane, LLC , 484 S.W.3d 902, 905 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016) ). Rule 55.01 requires tha......
  • 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