148 N.E.3d 335
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- On November 8, 2011, Kathleen Burdick (experienced rider/trainer) was riding her horse Chip in a dedicated indoor arena at Romano’s boarding property when she fell and sustained a broken shoulder and brain injury.
- Romano’s horse Sheza had a known history of aggression and kicking; Romano had warned Burdick previously about Sheza.
- Burdick’s version: Romano dismounted Sheza, left the reins, walked away to fetch a barrel, Sheza spooked/backed and kicked Chip, causing Burdick to be struck and lose consciousness. Romano’s version: Chip abruptly stopped and Burdick fell.
- Burdick sued Romano for negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness; the trial court denied motions in limine and refused Burdick’s negligence instructions, instead giving instructions on incurred risk, inherent risks of equine activities, and sporting-event/inherent-risk doctrines.
- Jury returned verdict for Romano, allocating fault 35% to Romano and 65% to Burdick; Burdick appealed challenging the jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing negligence/duty instructions | Burdick: this is ordinary negligence (like a dog‑bite/animal‑propensity case); Romano knew Sheza’s dangerous propensity and failed to secure her | Romano: activity was an equine sporting/training activity; co‑participant standard requires proof of recklessness, not mere negligence | Affirmed — court found activity was a sporting/equine training activity; negligence instruction unsupported and could mislead jury; plaintiff must prove recklessness |
| Whether instructing on inherent risks of equine activities was error | Burdick: instruction improperly shifts or confuses burden and was inappropriate | Romano: statutory inherent‑risk instruction accurately describes known equine risks and fits the facts | Affirmed — instruction tracked statutory language, omitted inapplicable language, and was supported by evidence of Burdick’s awareness of risks |
| Whether incurred‑risk instruction was supported by evidence | Burdick: no evidence she knew Romano would dismount/leave Sheza untied; thus specific risk not known | Romano: Burdick knew Sheza’s kicking tendency and accepted that risk by continuing to ride/training activity | Affirmed — evidence showed Burdick knew Sheza’s history of kicking and understood riding risks, supporting incurred‑risk instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimbrough v. Anderson, 55 N.E.3d 325 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (standard for reviewing jury‑instruction rulings)
- Miller v. Ryan, 706 N.E.2d 244 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (instructions that mislead or confuse must be rejected)
- Einhorn v. Johnson, 996 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (horse‑caused injury analyzed under negligence in non‑sporting context)
- Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (participant‑vs‑co‑participant standard requires recklessness in sporting activities)
- Megenity v. Dunn, 68 N.E.3d 1080 (Ind. 2017) (affirmed that co‑participant liability requires proof of reckless conduct)
- Colaw v. Nicholson, 450 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (incurred risk requires actual knowledge of the specific risk)