CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 1048544
...y other person, which shall include a corporation or partnership [such as Disney], shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant [such as Raveson] resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities and, except as provided in s. 773.03, no participant nor any participant's representative shall have any claim against or recover from any equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or any other person for injury, loss, damage, or death *1173 of the participant resulting from any of the inherent risks of equine activities....
...from liability. Chapter 773, Florida Statutes recognizes the inherent risks of equine activities and eliminates the liability of equine professionals from claims by a participant in an equine activity. See Fla. Stat. §
773.01(5), (6), & (7) (1997). Section
773.03(2)(b) does not eliminate liability when an equine professional fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, or to determine the ability of the partici...
...manage the particular equine based on the participant's representation of his or her ability. Robin Raveson admits that Disney requested her to describe her horse riding experience and she responded with "some years ago." The provision contained in section 773.03(2)(b) may be an obstacle to an equine professional obtaining a summary judgment in a majority of the cases involving the type of trail rides involved in this case where there exists no prior or ongoing relationship among participant, professional, and equine....
...Nothing appears in Chapter 773 or its history that would restrict an equine professional from obtaining a release and indemnity agreement in order to eliminate liability that would survive the limitations of Chapter 773. The language of the exceptions to the limitation of liability found in section 773.03 does not specifically state or even suggest that the body of law allowing one to obtain a release and indemnity agreement would be ineffective in extinguishing potential liability....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10715, 2004 WL 1606713
...nt. R & R responds, arguing that because the only exceptions to the broad grant of immunity given equine activity sponsors from liability for injuries suffered by participants while engaging in inherent risks of equine activities are found solely in section
773.03, Florida Statutes (2002), and, because the statutory duty to warn of the sponsor's nonliability is otherwise provided in section
773.04, the breach of such duty, if it occurred, does not meet any of the narrow categories of exceptions set out under section
773.03. A proper resolution of the issue requires a careful examination of sections
773.02,
773.03, and
773.04. Section
773.02 provides: General provisions. Except as provided in s.
773.03, an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person, which shall include a corporation or partnership, shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities and, except as provided in s.
773.03, no participant nor any participant's representative shall have any claim against or recover from any equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or any other person for injury, loss, damage, or death of the participant resulting from any of the inherent risks of equine activities....
...," defined in part in section
773.01(6), Florida States (2002), as "those *889 dangers or conditions which are an integral part of equine activities." [3] In that section
773.02 explicitly refers only to the limitations from liability as provided in section
773.03, we must carefully examine the exceptions expressed therein to determine whether they reasonably permit an in pari materia construction with provisions not included....
...By reading all three statutes of chapter 773 in pari materia, we conclude that the consequence not stated by the legislature for the failure of an equine owner to comply with the posting requirements of section
773.04 is supplied by conjoining the provisions therein with the exceptions enumerated in section
773.03. Thus, the omission of the equine sponsor in not posting the sign required in section
773.04 is one "that a reasonably prudent person would not have done or omitted under the same or similar circumstances." §
773.03(2)(d), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13398
...appeal.
II. Analysis1
A. The Act’s relevant provisions
The operative immunity provision of the Act is codified in section
773.02 of
the Florida Statutes, which reads, in relevant part, as follows:
Except as provided in s.
773.03, an equine activity sponsor, an equine
professional, or any other person, which shall include a corporation or
partnership, shall not be liable for an injury to . . . a participant
resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities and, except as
provided in s.
773.03, no participant ....
...liability resulting from Germer’s horse bite.3
Affirmed.
3 If, as here, the Act’s immunity provisions apply to exculpate an equine activity
sponsor, a claimant is saddled with the burden of establishing an applicable
exception to exculpation under section
773.03(2). Germer makes the alternate
argument that a factual dispute exists as to whether any of the exceptions to section
773.02 articulated in section
773.03(2)(a)-(e) apply....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 15047, 2010 WL 3893864
...les McNichol, in a horse related accident by reason of the immunity afforded to equine sponsors by section
773.02, Florida Statutes and assumption of the risk. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in ignoring the negligence exception provided in section
773.03, Florida Statutes, which raises issues of fact....
...egligent by allowing the dirt mound to be placed on the inside edge of the track. The defendant responded that section
773.02 provided it with absolute immunity for injuries resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities. Plaintiff contended section
773.03(2)(d) provides an exception to an equine activity sponsors immunity when the sponsor "[c]ommits an act or omission that a reasonably prudent person would not have done or omitted under the same or similar circumstances...." The evidenc...
...At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, defendant moved for a directed verdict alleging plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. The plaintiff argued issues of fact had been raised pertaining to the negligence exception contained in section 773.03 which should be determined by the jury....
...(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 or her ability. (Emphasis added). Section
773.02 provides that: *256 Except as provided in s.
773.03, an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person, which shall include a corporation or partnership, shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities and, except as provided in s.
773.03, no participant nor any participant's representative shall have any claim against or recover from any equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or any other person for injury, loss, damage, or death of the participant resulting from any of the inherent risks of equine activities....
...have been presented to the jury. See e.g. Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc.,
492 So.2d 1309, 1311 (Fla. 1986) (holding that riding on a track with a negligently placed exit gap is not an inherent risk in the sport of horse racing). Additionally, Section
773.03 provides: (2) Nothing in s....
...he inside of the track for any extended period of time. There is no immunity for equine activity when the claim is based on "an act or omission that a reasonably prudent person would not have done or omitted under the same or similar circumstances." § 773.03(2)(d)....
...*257 R & R Invs., Ltd.,
877 So.2d 886, 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (finding that the omission of an equine sponsor in not posting a sign required in section
773.04 is one that a "`reasonably prudent person would not have done or omitted under the same or similar circumstances.'") (quoting section
773.03(2)(d))....
...rees, fences, and other trainers and things, all of which are inherent risks of the profession. The plaintiff *258 also admitted that yearlings, such as the horse in question, are unpredictable. Section
773.02 provides in part: Except as provided in s.
773.03, an equine activity sponsor ... shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities and, except as provided in s.
773.03, no participant ......
...The facts of this case uniquely satisfy all but one of the inherent risks identified in the statute. I cannot in good conscience find a reason to deviate from the immunity provided by this statute. The plaintiff relies upon the negligence exception found in section
773.03(2)(d) in an attempt to avoid the immunity found in section
773.02, Florida Statutes (2004)....
...[c]ommits an act or omission that a reasonably prudent person would not have done or omitted under the same or similar circumstances or that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, which act or omission was a proximate cause of the injury.... § 773.03(2)(d), Fla....
...ovisions of the equine immunity law, the exception takes on a more limited form. Section
773.02 provides immunity to the defendant "for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities...." By reading section
773.03 in pari materia, it exempts from section
773.02's immunity, negligent acts or omissions and willful or wanton conduct that do not fall within the defined "inherent risks of equine activities." An example of a negligent act or omission...
...igence would not be immune under section
773.02. The defendant argues that allowing the negligence exception to trump the immunity *259 provision eliminates the very immunity provided by the statute, but claims that the terms "willful and wanton" in section
773.03(2)(d) only modify and limit the words "act or omission." Reading the wording of the exception, I cannot agree with that reasoning, but reach the same conclusion for the reason stated above....
