Negligence – Release doesn’t bar rider’s negligence claim against horse owner

Where a horse rider alleged that she fell from a horse because of a faulty tack provided by the owner, the owner’s reliance upon a release was misplaced. Although the rider acknowledged that falling from a horse is possible, and that it may cause injury, that release was insufficient to absolve the owner from all negligent acts and omissions that could lead to participants falling from their horse.

Background

After being injured during a horseback riding lesson given by Pines Horse Farm and Sanctuary LLC, Julianne Post filed a negligence claim. Following various written interrogatories, requests for admission and responses, Pines Horse Farm moved for summary judgment.

Pines Horse Farm argued that Post could not recover because Post had executed a waiver and release of liability pursuant to Code § 3.2-6202, admitted she did not have evidence that Pines Horse Farm knowingly provided her with faulty tack and did not allege that Pines Horse Farm intentionally injured her nor any of the exceptions to the liability prohibition in Code § 3.2-6202(A). After reviewing briefs on the matter and conducting a hearing on the motion, the circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment.

Exceptions

Code § 3.2-6202 limits the liability of equine activity. Notwithstanding Code § 3.2-6202, Code § 3.2-6203 lists three circumstances that allow liability. Post contends that Pines Horse Farm provided her with faulty tack, and because the tack was faulty, when the horse she was riding moved in a certain way, the tack snapped and she fell from her horse. Further, in her complaint, Post specifically alleged that it was because of this negligence that she suffered her injury.

In other words, Post argues that but for the faulty tack snapping, she would have regained her balance and not fallen from the horse. Thus, Post submits that Pines Horse Farm “commit[ted] an act or omission that constitutes negligence” and that “such act or omission caused [her] injury,” two of the circumstances that allow liability.

Assumption of risk

The court next turns to whether Post expressly assumed the risk causing her injury, which is an exception to the exception. Pines Horse Farm argues that Post’s signing of the release prevents it from being liable, because she assumed the risk causing her injury. Pines Horse Farm points to specific language in the release where Post acknowledged that “[i]f a rider falls from a horse to ground it will generally be at a distance of from [sic] 3 to 6 feet and the impact may result in injury to the rider.”

Although the risk of receiving faulty tack is not expressly assumed in the release Form, Pines Horse Farm asserts that, because of the acknowledgment that she could fall from the horse and suffer injury, Post assumed the “risk of falling and suffering injury for whatever cause.” This court disagrees with Pines Horse Farm’s contention.

In essence, Pines Horse Farm argues that the assumption of risk inquiry must end at “falls from a horse,” ignoring the facts alleged thereafter that gave rise to the fall. Following this logic and interpretation of what it means to expressly assume the risk of injury would lead to an absurd result.

In her complaint, Post alleged that the negligent provision of faulty tack caused her injury. But this was not one of the risks expressly assumed in the release. For example, Post acknowledged that certain weather conditions may scare the horse and that the horse could stop short, buck, rear, kick or otherwise act in a way that could cause injury to the rider. But the particular conduct causing Post’s injury—receiving faulty tack—was not mentioned expressly in the release.

A general acknowledgment that falling from a horse is possible and that it may cause injury is insufficient to absolve Pines Horse Farm from all negligent acts and omissions that could lead to participants falling from their horse, and it is not an express assumption of the risk causing the injury under Code § 3.2-6203(2). In sum, this court holds that the risk of receiving faulty tack was not expressly assumed by Post in the Release Form, and, as such, the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Pines Horse Farm.

Reversed and remanded.

Post v. The Pines Horse Farm and Sanctuary, LLC, Case No. 0445-25-1, May 19, 2026. CAV (Frucci). From the Circuit Court of the City of Williamsburg and County of James City (DeFord). Joshua D. Barbosa (Jonathan R. DeLoatche; Williams DeLoatche, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. G. Christopher Jones, Jr. (Allen L. Kidd; Ryan V. Logan; Sinnott, Nuckols & Logan, P.C., on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-200. 8 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-7-200