Who is Mr. Fleener?

She rode on Salt, a 15 year thoroughbred gelding, which has been a schooling horse for GRS for rough ten years and which is regularly used for lessons at in all levels.

Mr. Church said he does not know what happened barely he assumes that the horse got away from her or she lost her balance. He noticed the day after the extend that the girth or under strapping on the saddle had a downcast buckle. The saddle was GRS' regular school saddle. Mr. Church believes that no oneness checked the saddle, which had been on Salt during a previous lesson, forward Ms. Wing began her lesson. GRS did not have Ms. Wing sign a waiver form from its insurance carrier. GRS posted in its subprogram on the premises a sign from the carrier which declared that GRS would not be responsible for any injuries.

1. Whether EALA successfully limits GRS' and Mr. Church's financial obligation; and

2. Whether GRS and/or Mr. Church were negligent toward Ms. Wing and were the proximate make believe of her fall and her injuries.

The answer to the first suspicion is probably not. EALA does not render the owner or operator of a move stable immune from financial obligation for inadvertence. The answer to the second question is less clear. It will depend on the facts adduced at trial.

The Michigan EALA became effective on skirt 30, 1995. There are no reported decisions under it. previous to EALA, Michigan courts followed the traditional common law rule that riders on horses assumed the lay on the line that horses might throw them. Elias v. Hess, 327 Mich. 323, 41 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Sup. Ct. 1950). For non-Michigan cases indicatory of the more recent pre-EALA trend toward imposing liability on equine operators, see Galardi v. Seahorse Riding Club, 20 Cal.Rptr. 270, 16 Cal.App. 4th 790 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) and Mounts v. Knodel, 83 Or.App. 90, 730 P.2d 594 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). The facts in Mount are exchangeable to the facts in the present case. The rider was injured from a fall due to a broken left stirrup on the saddle. Elias is a weak precedent for operators to rely on in view of the above developments.

Krystnya M.

Carmel, The Equine Activity Liability Acts: A Discussion of Those in Existence and Suggestions for a Model Act, 83 Ky.L.J., (1994/1995), 157-196.

n is one of more than 30 states which have select statutes designed to limit the liability of owners and operators of equine facilities. The enactment of EALAs in Michigan and elsewhere reflects a strong public polity "to encourage equine activities by limiting the civil liability of those involved in such activities, in light of the candor that rising insurance costs and increased judicial proceeding would seat many equine professionals . . . out of business." EALAs put the concept of impudence of risk back into cases involving injuries related to horses. Carmel says that "the replacement of the assumption of risk teaching with that of comparative negligence has resulted in more litigation for injuries related to equine activity." Michigan abolished the assumption of risk doctrine in Felgner v. Anderson, 375 Mich. 23, 133 N.W.2d 136 (Mich. Sup. Ct. 1965). Since 1980 comparative negligence has been applicable to Michigan negligence actions. Douglas v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 505 F.Supp. 765 (D. Mich. 1980),
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.