Honey, just give ol' Nitro a sugar cube and he'll calm right down.
Posted on 09/16/2009 6:51:43 AM PDT by frithguild
The month after Barbara Ann Stanislav and William J. Papp Jr. saw each other's profiles on the Internet dating site Match.com in 2005, the two horse lovers made plans to go on a date to a Westchester, N.Y., stable.
According to Stanislav, whose equestrian skills were a bit rusty, Papp assured her that he would give her a gentle, safe horse to ride.
But on their third date, when the two met on a winter afternoon, the day took a tragic turn.
As Papp and another rider were performing jumps, Stanislav was seriously injured when her horse "Teddy" suddenly lunged forward, causing her to fall and hit her head.
Two years later, Stanislav, sued Papp, claiming he failed to provide her with an obedient horse and did not adhere to her request to ride slowly and carefully.
But last week, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Walter Tolub held in Stanislav v. Papp, 101049/08, that Papp was not responsible for his date's injuries.
"Plaintiff offers no evidence that Defendant knew that Teddy had dangerous propensities or that Teddy actually had dangerous propensities. The only evidence is that Plaintiff voluntarily mounted Teddy and proceeded with this recreational sporting activity," the judge wrote.
"Neither the fact that Mr. Papp provided the means for their trail ride, nor the fact that Mr. Papp was aware that Plaintiff had not been horseback riding for a number of years, provides a legal basis for Plaintiff to recover damages from her date," Tolub concluded in granting Papp summary judgment.
Stanislav and Papp both posted on Match.com photographs of themselves on horseback. The two met in New York City in January 2005. During their first date, Stanislav told Papp she started riding 20 years earlier in Kansas, when she owned two horses.
Though she had not ridden for several years, Stanislav expressed an interest in getting her skills back. For his part, Papp had two years of equestrian experience and owned a horse.
The couple met on an afternoon in February 2005 in upper Westchester County at a private stable, where they were joined on a trail ride by groomer Christopher DePhillipis.
Stanislav borrowed gear from Papp and claimed she told him repeatedly that she needed a slow, gentle horse. Papp allayed her concerns, she said, assuring her that he would find her a horse that matched her ability.
"[I]n the equestrian world, there is a way equestrians take care of each other," Stanislav testified.
According to the decision, Stanislav had trouble mounting Teddy, a small Appaloosa selected for her by DePhillips. On the trail, Teddy tried to keep up with the larger horses, and did not obey her command to slow or "half halt," Stanislav claimed.
Papp and DePhillipis eventually went off to try some jumps and Stanislav opted to meet up with them on the trail. Later, Teddy unexpectedly lunged forward, causing her to fall.
She was helicoptered to a nearby hospital, and subsequently underwent spinal fusion, a craniotomy, and several eye surgeries, according to her attorney, Robert Becker of Becker & D'Agostino.
Following the accident, Papp and Stanislav remained in touch for about two years.
According to Papp's attorney, Leonard Toker of Hoey King Toker & Esptein, who serves as in-house counsel to the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, Stanislav "needed a helping hand." At one point, his client took her to a doctor's appointment, Toker said, adding that the pair mainly corresponded by e-mail.
Papp was "shocked" when Stanislav filed the negligence suit, Toker said.
RISK DOCTRINE
Tolub held that under the assumption of risk doctrine, individuals who participate in recreational activities can be deemed to have consented to injury-causing events that are known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation, Tolub wrote.
Injury caused by the sudden and unintended actions of horses is an inherent risk in riding, he wrote.
And the judge said it was clear from the plaintiff's testimony that she was under no compulsion to ride with Papp.
Stanislav acknowledged that she did not express concerns about Teddy before the ride or "express a desire to end" it before the accident occurred, Tolub wrote.
And the judge noted that the nature of the couple's relationship "did not obligate Defendant to assess Plaintiff's level of expertise and experience."
He concluded, "Neither Plaintiff's lack of recent riding experience, nor her requests for assistance when she found herself unable to control the horse, created a duty of care on Defendant's part to prevent her from the risks associated with horseback riding."
Becker said his client, Stanislav, continues to suffer permanent injuries, including seizure disorder, and has not worked since the accident. She has not decided whether to appeal.
Toker said he thinks Stanislav, who was "badly injured" and has hit "hard financial times," brought the suit as a way of tapping into Papp's insurance policy, which covered him for negligence occurring outside the home.
She voluntarily mounted the horse. She also had previous riding experience. She was stupid to sue someone for her choices.
Honey, just give ol' Nitro a sugar cube and he'll calm right down.
They would say “these cases are less than 3 %” which of course is BS..
I’d say that one takes one’s chances when getting on a horse. Its wise to do ground drills with any horse you
plan to ride. If you can’t round pen your mount and get
it to do what you want it to do on the ground, don’t ride
it.
I am not sure what you mean by this comment.
If lawsuits like this one succeed, eventually we'll have no more horseback riding, white water rafting, swimming, diving, rock climbing, or any other potentially dangerous recreational activities, or they will be so prohibitively expensive, due to high liability insurance premiums, that only the very wealthy will be able to afford them.
The judge is correct in his finding, IMO.
The Court found without a trial that the case should be dismissed because the date did not owe a legal duty. The Court resoundingly stated her injuries were her own personal responsibility. What needs to be reformed?
Most of us (especially the females) start riding very young. I've had a layoff recently because my horse has been lame, but I started riding around age 7 and have never really stopped. That's almost 50 years in the saddle. If anything stupid happens, I have clearly assumed the risk. And something stupid WILL happen, guaranteed. Horses are unpredictable, easily startled, and large and powerful. As my trainer says, "It's a horse. What did you expect?"
I guess this state doesn't have the "Equine Activity Immunity Act" that has been enacted in most places, or this plaintiff was travelling under the (usual) exception that she relied on the defendant to supply a horse suitable to her ability, one of the loopholes.
The whole thing sounds like a crock.
She didn’t sue match.com for not protecting her from her own incompetence?
LOL...sugar is the last thing that fella needs.
And what did this frivolous lawsuit cost him? Loser pays is what needs to be reformed b/c like it or not this kind of BS is emotionally, physically and monetarily draining to those on the receiving end of this sort of shake down. And in the medicine: it causes medical personal to practice in a defensive manner....leading to the high cost of medicine (hot topic at this time, in case you weren’t aware)
I have used this very argument many times. In fact, there is a 1950's case in NJ, McCarthy v. NASCAR, where McCarthy was burned sued NASCAR because a fuel line ran through the passenger compartment of his car, which was a violation of a Department of Community Affairs regulation - this made McCarthy's liability waiver ineffective. NASCAR, now a multi-billion dollar industry- consciously left New Jersey, not to return until 2008.
Many Judges look at me like I put a thumb in their eye when I give them that one.
“What needs to be reformed?”
She should have to pay for the her date’s defense bill. That cost him a bunch of money, I am sure.
Accidents like this are why I prefer dirtbikes. The bike is just as fast, just as powerful (though granted not as quiet), but is far more predictable. It always does exactly what you tell it to, no matter what the consequences.
If she really were a horseback rider, she would know full well that horses, not unlike dogs or children, love to make a liar out of you. So, perhaps she fraudulently misrepresented her experience with horses?
Maybe I am too cynical, but this lawsuit is so frivolous and inane that it has the feel of a bitter, jilted woman trying to get payback, rather than an honest citizen who believes she has a real, legally actionable case.
She should be required to pay all the legal costs, as well as reimburse the courts for their wasted time.
Anyone who gets on a horse’s back - or is around them on the ground - has to accept the risk of injury or death. A horse can be “bomb-proof”, but if it meets a bomb it hasn’t seen before (blowing paper, motorcycle, etc), all the proofing can disappear fast.
With experience, you can reduce the probability, but you cannot eliminate it. Many states have laws that specifically address this.
FWIW - Federico Caprilli invented the ‘forward seat’ for jumping with horses, now used by everyone. He was killed in 1907 (age 39) when his horse slipped and fell on icy cobblestones...
http://www.sporthorsesnewzealand.com/caprilli.html
If she had to have a craniotomy, it sounds as though she wasn’t wearing an approved helmet. And that was her own stupid fault. Nobody should get on a horse without a helmet. The greatest experts wear helmets, and sometimes when they don’t they end up dead (just last year a dressage master in California, schooling a very quiet and well-trained horse on the flat and on a soft surface, fell off and sustained a fatal head injury).
Horse do stuff. Horses are dangerous. Even the most gentle horse weighs at least a thousand pounds, and few of them have much sense of responsibility. If you ride, you’re taking a risk. It’s part of the deal, and lawsuits don’t change that. If you don’t want to risk injury or death, don’t ride.
P.S.: Last Sunday, schooling an obnoxious off-the-track Thoroughbred (my specialty, as per my screenname) I fell off for the first time in two years. I landed on my head and neck. If I had not been wearing a top-of-the-line approved CO helmet I would have had a serious head injury.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.