Cohen v. Five Brooks Stable
Filed February 14, 2008, First District, Div. Two
Cite as 2008 SOS 1099

Decision on Summary Judgment Reversed on Appeal

Appellant Susan Cohen and several friends went horseback riding on horses rented from respondent Five Brooks Table. During the course of the trip, appellant fell from her horse and was injured.

The injury was allegedly brought about when Wimple, a guide and employee of the respondent, caused his horse to gallop without any warning to the other riders. Due to such sudden gallop, appellant’s horse also galloped.

As a consequence, appellant filed a complaint against respondent alleging single count of negligence.

Respondent moved for a summary judgment with the following allegations:

• Express assumption of risk. When the appellant signed the Visitor's Acknowledgement of Risk (Release), she expressly waived her negligence claim.


• Implied assumption of risk. Respondent had no duty of care to appellant under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk because a fall from a horse is a risk inherent in horseback riding.

The trial court in granting the summary judgment held that:

• Respondent is not liable because the Release was “clear, unambiguous, and explicit”. It was an agreement not to hold respondent liable for negligence.


• The Release states a “specifically identified” risk of horseback riding as well as “other unknown or unanticipated risks.


• Even if Wimple's conduct was negligent and increased the risk inherent in horseback riding, it assumed the risk of the injuries that happened.

On appeal, the California Court of Appeals made the following findings:

• Falling off a galloping horse is not an inherent risk of horseback riding.


• The Release merely restated common law assumption of risk principles. It did not in any way bar appellant from enforcing its claim in case of injury.

Therefore, the appeals court reversed the trial court's grant of a summary judgment.