Background
On April 1, 2023, Julianne Post participated in a horseback riding lesson at The Pines Horse Farm and Sanctuary, LLC in Williamsburg, Virginia. Before the lesson, Post signed a comprehensive “Horse Riding Agreement and Liability Release Form” that warned of the inherent dangers of horseback riding, described the nature and power of horses, outlined the rider’s responsibility for safety, and released the farm from liability for injuries resulting from the intrinsic dangers of equine activities.
During the lesson, the tack (saddle and related equipment) on Post’s horse broke, causing her to fall from the horse and sustain injury. Post filed a negligence action against the farm, alleging that it failed to maintain the tack, failed to properly supervise and instruct her, and failed to warn her of the defective condition of the equipment that the farm knew or should have known existed.
The farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that Post’s signed waiver and release barred recovery under Virginia Code § 3.2-6202 and that Post had not alleged the statutory exceptions allowing liability. The circuit court granted summary judgment. Post appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the circuit court’s summary judgment, holding that Post stated a valid negligence claim that must proceed to trial. The court held that Virginia Code § 3.2-6203(2) creates an exception to equine liability immunity when an equine activity sponsor commits an act or omission constituting negligence that causes injury, provided the participant has not expressly assumed the specific risk causing that injury.
The court rejected the farm’s argument that Post’s general acknowledgment in the release form that riders could fall from horses and suffer injury constituted an express assumption of risk covering all negligent acts. The court distinguished between assuming the general risk of falling from a horse (which the form addressed) and expressly assuming the specific risk of receiving faulty or defective tack (which it did not). A general acknowledgment of one danger is insufficient to absolve a defendant from liability for a distinct, specific negligent act or omission not mentioned in the release.
Since Post’s complaint alleged that the farm negligently provided faulty tack and that this negligence caused her fall and injury, and since the release form did not expressly address the risk of defective equipment, the exception in Code § 3.2-6203(2) applied. Post had sufficiently pleaded a viable negligence claim against the farm, and summary judgment was improper.
Key Takeaways
- Equine liability waivers cannot be stretched beyond their express terms to cover all possible sources of injury; they must specifically address the risk at issue.
- Courts will not adopt an interpretation of waivers that would absurdly shield operators from liability for all negligent conduct simply because riders acknowledge general equine dangers.
- The distinction between assumed risks (general hazards inherent in the activity) and negligent conduct (specific failures to maintain equipment or supervise) remains material even in equine contexts.
- At the pleading and summary judgment stage, a plaintiff alleging negligent maintenance of equipment need only allege that the defendant “knew or should have known” of the defect; direct evidence of knowledge is not required.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly narrows the scope of blanket liability waivers in equine activities. While Virginia law recognizes broad immunity for injuries arising from the intrinsic dangers of horses (bucking, rearing, spooking), operators cannot use sweeping waivers to escape responsibility for their own negligence in maintaining facilities and equipment. The court’s holding reflects a judicial reluctance to adopt interpretations that would defeat all meaningful liability for defendant negligence through boilerplate release language.
For equine operators, the decision means that liability waivers must be carefully drafted to identify specific risks and conditions the participant expressly assumes. For injured riders, the decision confirms that negligent maintenance of tack and similar failures to provide safe equipment may support a claim even where comprehensive waivers are signed, provided the waiver did not expressly address that particular category of risk. The case will proceed to trial, where a jury will determine whether the farm was indeed negligent in providing faulty tack and whether that negligence caused Post’s injury.