Kovnat v. Xanterra Parks and Resorts
770 F.3d 949
10th Cir.2014Background
- Kovnat, a California resident, was injured during a Yellowstone horseback ride operated by Xanterra and brought a diversity negligence action.
- The district court granted summary judgment, holding the Wyoming Recreational Safety Act (WRSA) bars Kovnat’s claims by eliminating the duty to eliminate inherent risks.
- Evidence showed Kovnat’s saddle cinch was checked multiple times before the ride, and the saddle later proved difficult to remove after the fall.
- Kovnat alleged the saddle cinch was too loose and that uneven stirrups contributed to the fall; the wranglers checked cinches but not stirrups.
- WRSA provides that providers have no duty to eliminate, alter, or control inherent risks, and assumes the participant bears inherent risks.
- The panel affirmed in part (cinch) and reversed in part (uneven stirrups), remanding for further proceedings consistent with the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a loose cinch is an inherent risk under WRSA | Kovnat argues cinch looseness caused injury not inherent | Xanterra contends cinch risk is inherent | Yes; cinch risk deemed inherent; district court proper |
| Whether uneven stirrups are an inherent risk under WRSA | Kovnat argues uneven stirrups are not inherent and require jury. | Xanterra contends uneven stirrups are inherent or unavoidably typical | No; genuine issues of material fact exist; jury could find not inherent; remanded |
| Whether WRSA disposes of Kovnat’s negligent training/supervision claim | WRSA negates duty; negligence claim barred | If inherent risks control, no duty for training/supervision | Partially; upheld for cinch-based theory, reversed for uneven-stirrups theory |
| Role of fact-specific inquiry under WRSA | Facts should be decided by jury | If facts show inherent risk, no duty | Inherent risk determinations depend on specific facts; some factual questions for jury remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooperman v. David, 214 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2000) (cinching and saddle-slippage are inherent risks; need fact-specific evidence to overcome inherent-risk defense)
- Halpern v. Wheeldon, 890 P.2d 562 (Wyo. 1995) (definitive approach to inherent risks under WRSA (as interpreted))
- Beckwith v. Weber, 277 P.3d 713 (Wyo. 2012) (inherent-risk question generally for jury where genuine issues exist)
- Sapone v. Grand Targhee, Inc., 308 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2002) (WRSA analysis applied to altered definitions of inherent risk)