Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Landowner Liability

Recreational Use Statute Applicable in Action Against Horse Owner

Joshua Thomas Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

Summary of Decision

In King v. CJM Country Stables, Inc., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1061, the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii held that Hawaii's recreational use statute applied in an action brought by a horseback rider against a horse owner in which the rider claimed that she was bitten by the owner's horse.

Background

Plaintiffs John and Patricia King traveled to the Hawaii islands in September of 2001. See id. While in Hawaii, the plaintiffs participated in an organized horseback trail ride. See id. Prior to the trail ride, the plaintiffs signed a "Participant Agreement, Release, and Acknowledgment of Risk" form. See id. In essence, the form purportedly released defendant CJM Country Stables, Inc. (CJM Stables) from liability in the event that the plaintiffs were injured while on the trail ride. See id. During the trail ride, Patricia King was bitten by another rider's horse. See id. She brought an action in state court against the defendant, claiming that she suffered severe and permanent bodily injuries and that the defendant owed her past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and other special and general damages. See id. at 1063. The matter was subsequently removed to federal court. See id. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it was absolved of liability because the plaintiffs signed the release of liability form. See id.

Analysis and Holding

The federal district court explained that although neither party addressed it, the Hawaii recreational use statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-1.54 was applicable to the case at bar. See id. The court determined that considering the application of § 663-1.54 along with its legislative history, the defendant's motion for summary judgment must be denied. See id. The court explained that § 663-1.54(a) "explicitly precludes waiving liability for negligence." Id. at 1067. It also explained that § 663-1.54(c) provided that the "determination of whether a risk is inherent or not is for the trier of fact," thus making the issue one not resolvable in a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 1067. The court held, therefore, that the defendant's motion for summary judgment must be denied.

The case was decided on February 18, 2004; this summary was posted Mar. 24, 2005.