Cooperman v. David United States District Court, D. Wyoming
23 F.Supp.2d 1315
August 17, 1998 To read the Court of Appeals opinion in this lawsuit, go to Cooperman v. David. Summary of Opinion Plaintiff was injured when his saddle slipped while on a trail ride sponsored by the defendant and plaintiff fell off his horse. On motion for summary judgment by the defendant, the District Court held that slipping saddles are an inherent part of horseback riding and, therefore, there can be no liability for such events under the Wyoming Recreational Safety Act. It granted the motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of the defendant. Text of Opinion The above captioned case having come before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court having reviewed the materials submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion, having heard oral argument and being otherwise fully informed in the premises, FINDS and ORDERS as follows: BACKGROUND The factual background underlying this case is a familiar one. Plaintiffs hired the Defendant to lead them on a horseback riding excursion near Pinedale, Wyoming. Defendant supplied both the horse and the tack and led Plaintiffs and their family members to a campsite where they enjoyed a lunch. On the return trip, Mr. Cooperman stopped his horse in order to wait for others in the group. While stopped his saddle slipped sideways causing him to fall to the ground and injuring his shoulder. The legal background of this case is anything but common. This motion centers on Wyoming's Recreation Safety Act and whether a slipping saddle is an "inherent risk" under that provision. Wyo. Stat. ยงยง 1 1 121 to 1 1 123 (Michie 1997). Defendant argues that slipping saddles are a natural part of the activity of horseback riding and consequently that the Plaintiff assumed the risk of such a possibility. The conclusion of his argument is that he is entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiffs challenge the Defendant's contention by arguing that the question of duty, as framed by the recreational safety act, is a question for the jury. They also argue that a slipping saddle is not an inherent risk of horseback riding or alternatively, that the Defendant breached an assumed a duty of reasonable care in maintaining the saddle. | |
|
