You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Filson v. Cold River Trail Rides, Inc.

Citations: 242 A.D.2d 775; 661 N.Y.S.2d 841; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8524

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; September 4, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Appeal from the Supreme Court's order, which denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence complaint filed by plaintiff Hannah Filson. In October 1991, Filson and her husband participated in a wilderness horseback riding excursion organized by the defendant, which included trail rides, meals, equipment, and a guide. On the second day, Filson was injured while attempting to mount her horse without assistance; her horse reared, causing her to fall and sustain injuries to her mouth and teeth.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendant was negligent for providing an unsuitable horse known to be easily spooked. The defendant sought summary judgment based on a signed release and discharge from liability. The Supreme Court denied this motion, concluding that the release was unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-326, which voids agreements that exempt operators of recreational facilities from liability for negligence if a fee is charged.

The appellate court agreed with the Supreme Court, referencing the precedent set in Brancati v Bar-U-Farm, Inc., where a similar statute was applied to a guided trail ride incident, reaffirming that the law applies to outdoor recreational activities. The court noted that the defendant's unique service of overnight excursions did not sufficiently distinguish this case from Brancati, and the fact that the defendant did not own the land where the injury occurred did not alter the applicability of the statute. Consequently, as questions of fact existed regarding negligence, the denial of the summary judgment motion was affirmed, with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.