Loftin v. Lee, 341 S.W.3d 352

Loftin hosted Lee for a horseback ride at Loftin's East Texas home; Loftin paired Lee with a 12-year-old gelding named Smash.
Lee, an experienced horse owner but infrequent rider, rode with Loftin on a trail Loftin had used previously.
The trail included a muddy, boggy area and hanging vines; Lee and Loftin did not avoid the area.
A vine touched Lee's horse, spooking it in the mud; the horse bolted and Lee suffered a fractured vertebra.
Lee and her husband sued Loftin; the trial court granted summary judgment in Loftin's favor under the Equine Activity Limitation of Liability Act (the Act).
The Tyler County Court of Appeals reversed, prompting the Texas Supreme Court to grant review to resolve two construction questions about the Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of inherent risk under the Act	Lee argues inherent risk means only animal behavior, not sponsor or trail conditions.	Loftin argues inherent risk includes non-behavioral risks like sponsor negligence and trail conditions.	Inherent risk includes risks inherent in activities involving equine animals, including sponsor negligence and trail conditions.
Effect of 87.004(2) on liability when failure to assess ability causes injury	Lee contends Loftin's failure to assess ability should expose Loftin to liability.	Loftin argues 87.004(2) requires a causal link between failure to determine ability and the injury; it is not strict liability.	87.004(2) applies only when the failure to determine ability is the cause of the damage.
Application of 87.003 vs. 87.004 to Lee's injury	Lee asserts the vine/mud risk is not inherent because it was caused by Loftin's conduct (trail choice).	Loftin contends the risks fall within 87.003 and are thus limited from liability absent 87.004(2) causation.	Lee's injury falls within 87.003 inherent risks; liability limited unless 87.004(2) causally applies.
Open courts/vagueness and other constitutional objections	Lee raised constitutional claims not preserved for review.	Loftin argued the issues were not properly preserved and should be rejected on that basis.	Constitutional claims not preserved; not reached on the merits.

Steeg v. Baskin Family Camps, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 633 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, pet. dism'd) (sponsors' control factors denied immunity (abrogated by this decision))
Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974) (abnormally dangerous animal/restatement rationale; open-liability framework)
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. 1998) (presumptive legislative intent; avoid useless acts)
Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2002) (open courts preservation rule governing constitutional claims)