Background
On April 8, 2022, Daphne Washington fell from a horse named Magnum during a supervised trail ride at Camp Collins in Lincoln Parish, Louisiana, operated by David Collins and Anna George. Daphne, who had not ridden since high school, and her husband Jimmy, a first-time rider, alleged that Magnum stepped into a large hole created by earth-burrowing animals, throwing Daphne to the ground. They sued the operators and their insurer, asserting failures to maintain safe grounds, to warn of known hazardous conditions (mole holes throughout the property), and to properly assess Daphne’s riding ability.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Magnum had merely stumbled by stubbing his hoof on a gentle slope — an inherent risk of horseback riding — and that the nearest molehill was 150 to 200 yards from the accident site. They invoked the immunity provided by La. R.S. 9:2795.3, which shields equine activity sponsors and professionals from liability for injuries arising from the inherent risks of equine activities, subject to several enumerated exceptions. Collins submitted an affidavit attesting that a statutory warning sign was posted at the stable, and a photograph taken days after the accident purportedly showing only a hoof imprint rather than a pre-existing hole.
The trial court granted summary judgment, limiting its analysis to the “dangerous latent condition” exception under La. R.S. 9:2795.3(C)(3) and declining to consider arguments about two other exceptions the Washingtons raised for the first time in their opposition brief. The court found Jimmy’s claim that Collins had admitted days after the accident that Magnum likely stepped in a hole to be immaterial in light of Collins’s photographic evidence, concluded there were no genuine issues of material fact, and dismissed the Washingtons’ claims with prejudice. The trial court also denied their subsequent motions for new trial and leave to amend their petition.
The Court’s Holding
The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Applying de novo review, the court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Daphne’s injuries resulted from a dangerous latent condition — specifically, a mole hole or molehill — that was known or should have been known to Collins and George, and for which conspicuous warning signs had not been posted, bringing the case within the exception at La. R.S. 9:2795.3(C)(3).
The court found that the trial court impermissibly weighed evidence rather than identifying whether a genuine factual dispute existed. Jimmy’s testimony that Collins told him several days after the accident that “the best he could figure out was that Magnum stepped into a hole” directly conflicted with Collins’s denial of that statement and his photographic evidence. The court emphasized that assessing witness credibility and the probative value of Collins’s photograph are functions reserved for the factfinder, not the summary judgment court. Because the statute grants immunity in derogation of general tort rights, it must be strictly construed against the party claiming the protection.
Key Takeaways
- Under La. R.S. 9:2795.3, equine activity immunity does not apply where a participant is injured due to a dangerous latent condition on the premises that the operator knew or should have known about and failed to mark with conspicuous warning signs — a factual question that cannot be resolved on summary judgment when the evidence conflicts.
- A trial court granting summary judgment may not resolve credibility disputes or weigh competing evidence, even circumstantial evidence such as post-accident photographs; those determinations belong to the factfinder at trial.
- Because immunity statutes derogate from general tort rights, Louisiana courts strictly construe them against the party asserting the immunity, making it easier for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment when any exception is genuinely contested.
- Operators of equine facilities should document ground conditions contemporaneously after an incident, ensure warning signs strictly comply with statutory requirements, and carefully assess participants’ riding abilities — all factors that bear on the availability of statutory immunity.
Why It Matters
This decision is a practical reminder that Louisiana’s equine liability shield under La. R.S. 9:2795.3 has meaningful limits and that those limits are fact-intensive. Facility operators cannot obtain summary dismissal simply by characterizing an accident as an “inherent risk” of riding when a plaintiff presents conflicting evidence suggesting a known hazardous ground condition — such as widespread mole activity — may have caused the injury. The ruling makes clear that post-incident statements by the operator, even informal ones made to a family member, can create triable issues sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
For plaintiffs’ attorneys, the case illustrates the importance of pressing the statutory exceptions at the pleading stage rather than raising them for the first time in opposition briefing. The trial court declined to consider two additional exceptions the Washingtons argued only in their summary judgment response, and the appeals court did not disturb that ruling, limiting reversal to the single exception properly pleaded. Counsel representing equestrian activity plaintiffs should plead all available exceptions to equine immunity statutes from the outset to preserve them for trial.