Danielle Larson v. Xyz Insurance Company
2017 La. LEXIS 944
La.2017Background
- Plaintiff Danielle Larson visited Equest Farm (a public equestrian facility) to see and feed school horses; she had been to the facility multiple times and had prior horse-feeding experience.
- On Sept. 23, 2013, Larson held a carrot for a pony (Wesley); the carrot fell and the pony bit off her thumb, causing severe injury.
- Larson testified she received prior permission from an employee to bring treats; other witnesses did not recall any posted signs forbidding feeding, while the farm’s owner produced affidavits and photos asserting signs had been posted since 2011.
- Equest Farm moved for summary judgment under Louisiana’s Equine Immunity Statute (La. R.S. 9:2795.3), arguing Larson was a "participant" engaged in equine activity and thus barred from recovery.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the court of appeal reversed, holding Larson was not a "participant" and that factual disputes (e.g., presence of signs, horse’s history) precluded summary judgment.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal, holding genuine issues of material fact exist about the statute’s applicability and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Larson was a "participant" engaging in "equine activity" under La. R.S. 9:2795.3 | Larson was a visitor/spectator feeding and petting horses, not engaged in statutorily enumerated equine activities | Equest Farm: feeding/petting constituted participation in equine activity, triggering immunity | Genuine issues of material fact exist; summary judgment inappropriate (remand) |
| Whether the equine-immunity provisions apply where defendant’s employee permitted feeding despite alleged posted signs | Larson: employee permission and lack of visible signs undermine claimed restriction; therefore immunity may not apply | Equest Farm: signs prohibiting feeding/petting were posted, and unauthorized entry/placement could defeat spectator status | Existence/visibility/effect of signs is disputed; factfinder must resolve |
| Whether an exception (known horse propensity / failure to assess ability) precludes immunity (La. R.S. 9:2795.3(C)(2)) | Larson: prior nipping incidents and facts could show the horse had a known propensity, so immunity’s exception may apply | Equest Farm: horse had minimal history; contends no disqualifying known propensity or failure to assess | Disputed evidence about horse’s history and notice creates genuine issues for trial |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment standard applied by trial court | Larson: factual disputes (signage, permission, horse history) require trial | Equest Farm: facts support only one reasonable conclusion—immunity applies—so judgment proper | Court reviews de novo and finds genuine disputes exist; reverses summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Greemon v. City of Bossier City, 65 So.3d 1263 (La. 2011) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (standards for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La. 2004) (summary judgment: resolve doubts for non-movant; genuine issue defined)
- Allen v. State ex rel. Ernest N. Morial–New Orleans Exhibition Hall Auth., 842 So.2d 373 (La. 2003) (summary judgment procedural principles)
- Dejoie v. Medley, 9 So.3d 826 (La. 2009) (requirements for opposing affidavits and evidentiary showing)
- Richard v. Hall, 874 So.2d 131 (La. 2004) (materiality of disputed facts judged against substantive law)
- Monteville v. Terrebonne Parish Consol. Gov’t, 567 So.2d 1097 (La. 1990) (statutes in derogation of common law construed strictly)