My advice: Don't date liberals looking for a quick buck. Don't use Match.com Too many scammers. And, guys? Steer clear of Barbara Ann Stanislav.
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.
The best I can say is I have been on a horse. I wouldn’t have called it “riding”. LOL
My daughter has ridden for years, and in the stable is clearly posted a Kansas law stating that just being in the barn means you accept any and all risks from being around the horses. So I’d say tort reform in that area is ahead of the curve.
I saw demonstrations of this belief every time I had the misfortune of driving through Cambridge, Mass. as good little Libs blithely hurled themselves into the path of my on-coming vehicle confident that a law requiring me to yield would in every instance bring half a ton of steel to a stop.
The insurance carrier for the defendant selected the defendant's attorney and directed him to file a summary judgment motion. Testimony of the dates, 2 hrs and 4 hrs max, motion papers 10 to 15 hrs max, oral argument 5 hrs max, including travel time. 25hrs. x $150/hr = $3,750.
this kind of BS is emotionally, physically and monetarily draining to those on the receiving end of this sort of shake down
Emotionally - receive the suit papers, give them to your insurance carrier, they do the work - you answer some written questions (1/2 hour of time max) and you appear for oral testimony - 2 hrs max. About as draining as filing tax returns as I see it.
Physically - not toll whatsoever.
Monitarily - $500 to $1,000 per year in homeowner's insurance premiums.
It seems you are making a straw man argument.
And in the medicine
A whole other subject - I will just treat that as off topic for now, otherwise we will spend all morning on this debate - ;)
Haha, I have ‘been’ on a horse, too. Not for me.
reimburse the courts for their wasted time
Courts have noting but time. Judges are the pinnacle of government employees. They spend most of their days doing nothing. Believe me!
How much did the falsely accused have to spend on lawyers? How much did the state have to spend providing the judge and the court?
The accuser or her lawyers should have to pay these expenses.
An astute observation. However, note that she went over the front and had had several eye surgeries. She probably went face first into an obstacle the horse did not want to encounter. A typical helmet does not cover the face - Just ask Tuff Hedeman.
The insurance carrier for the defendant selected the defendant’s attorney and directed him to file a summary judgment motion. Testimony of the dates, 2 hrs and 4 hrs max, motion papers 10 to 15 hrs max, oral argument 5 hrs max, including travel time. 25hrs. x $150/hr = $3,750.
As far as the Courts - please - they waste time all day long. That’s like asking taxpayers to pay for government waste ... wait a minute!
My horse kept rubbing against trees trying to brush me off. After an hour of that and me clinging for dear life, she headed back to the stable. 40 years later I still remember why I’ve only been on a horse 3 times. :-)
Helmets don’t cover the face, but the brim fends off a lot of stuff. My little son was actually kicked in the face by a horse, but because he was wearing his Charles Owens, the hoof hit the brim, not his tiny fragile face. Another girl at the barn was kicked in the face and underwent years of reconstructive surgery.
Of course, helmets can’t fix everything. I also know a man who drives around in his electric wheelchair because he broke his neck. No helmet is going to prevent that. Horses are just risky.
“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.”
Hear hear. Even the most gentle animals still have personalities. They can be easily startled. My dog is very gentle... just don’t get between him and a squirrel or chipmunk.
Maybe the horse saw a sewer rat. Or Chuck Rangel doing a real estate deal behind a tree. That’d make me jump.
Woman sues man - how 20th century. Hire Cass Sunstein and sue the horse.
That she and her lawyer did not have to pay the costs of the winning side.
The liberal claim that Tort cases are only 3% of overall health care expenditures for providers..
Seventy-five percent of the time when horses act up, it’s due to pilot error.
I agree judges are an excellent example of government employee mediocrity! My point was that someone should total up the amount of time the court system spent on this ridiculous claim, multiply that by the hourly rates of all involved and send this idiot woman a bill!
You are perceptive - I own a horse and I am an insurance lawyer.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments my FRiend
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.