Erikson v. Nunnink
191 Cal. App. 4th 826
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mia Eriksson, 17, died after her horse Kory tripped on a Galway Downs cross-country jump while Mia was coached by Kristi Nunnink.
- Erikssons sued Nunnink for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging Nunnink increased Mia’s risk by riding an unfit horse she concealed from Karan.
- Nunnink moved for summary judgment claiming no duty or breach under primary assumption of risk or a signed release; trial court granted; Erikssons appealed.
- Ram Tap (two weeks before Galway) injured Kory; Karan believed Kory lame, but Nunnink later asserted Kory was fit for Galway, conditioning Mia’s participation.
- Galway required vet checks; Kory was not excluded; Nunnink assured Mia and Karan he was fine; Mia rode and ultimately failed on cross-country.
- The appellate court held triable issues exist on Nunnink’s duty, breach, causation, and potential gross negligence, and allowed the release to be evaluated for gross negligence rather than enforcing it to bar claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Nunnink owe Mia a duty and breach it by selecting an unfit horse? | Erikssons allege Nunnink controlled horse fitness and increased risk by unfit horse. | Nunnink argues no duty or no breach under primary assumption of risk, or under the release. | Triable issues exist on duty and breach. |
| Does primary assumption of the risk bar the Erikssons' claims? | Instructors must not increase risks beyond inherent sport; misrepresentation and unfitness negate risk assumption. | As a general rule, cross-country risks are inherent and release may bar; Nunnink's actions could be within inherent risk. | Not dispositive; issues remain triable on whether risk was increased. |
| Are there triable issues on causation regarding Kory's fitness contributing to Mia's death? | If Kory unfit or misrepresented, causation linked to Nunnink’s conduct. | Erikssons must show causation beyond inherent sport risk; claims may still fail if no causal link. | Triable issues exist as to causation. |
| Does the signed release foreclose the claims, especially for gross negligence? | Release covers ordinary negligence; gross negligence remains viable per Santa Barbara; release not to bar all claims. | Release bars claims, including some negligence claims, to the extent applicable. | Release does not preclude claims based on aggravated misconduct; triable issues remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knight v. Jewett, 14 Cal.3d 698 (1992) (establishes duty in sports; not to increase inherent risks unless reckless or outside range)
- Tan v. Goddard, 13 Cal.App.4th 1528 (1993) (coaches owe duty of care; not insurer; risk management by instructor)
- Galardi v. Seahorse Riding Club, 16 Cal.App.4th 817 (1993) (instructor liability when coaching creates unreasonable risk; training context)
- Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist., 31 Cal.4th 990 (2003) (instructor may be liable for reckless or intentional harm; duty to push vs. danger)
- Bushnell v. Japanese-American Religious & Cultural Center, 43 Cal.App.4th 525 (1996) (coaches/instructors not liable for every training risk absent recklessness or intent)
- Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc., 28 Cal.App.4th 746 (1994) (duty not to increase risk in tryouts; depends on injury context)
- Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co., 15 Cal.4th 456 (1997) (references coach duty to not increase risk; dicta on instructors)
- City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747 (2007) (public policy limits on gross negligence releases; releases may not bar gross negligence claims)